Loading...
2004 07 15 HPCTait of 4Qg«fw HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AG E N DA The Regular Meeting to be held in the Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California JULY 15, 2004 1 :00 P.M. Beginning Minute Motion 2004-017 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Historic Preservation Commission on matters relating to historic resources within the City of La Quinta which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Historic Preservation Commission, please state your name and address and when discussing matters pertaining to prehistoric sites, do not disclose the exact location of the site(s) for their protection. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meeting of June 17, 2004 V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Revised Phase I Archaeological Survey Report on the Bermuda Dunes Property Applicant: Tahiti Partners Archaeological Consultant: L & L Environmental, Inc. (Leslie; Nay Irish, Principal) Location: South side of Darby Road, east of Washington Street and Palm Royale Drive. 001 B. Revised Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tentative Tract Map 31852 Applicant: Ehline Company Archaeological Consultant: L & L Environmental, Inc. (Leslie Nay Irish, Principal) Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 52. C. Archaeological Training Session: to be held in the Council Chambers VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT CI 0 2 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall Session Room 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 17, 2004 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Chairperson Leslie Mouriquand at 3:07 p.m. who led the flag salute and asked for the roll call. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Sharp, Wilbur, and Chairperson Mouriquand Absent: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to excuse Commissioners Puente and Wright. Unanimously approved. Staff Present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to approve minutes of the May 20, 2004, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the La Quinta Family Apartments and Phase I Paleontological Survey for the La Quinta Family Apartments; Applicant: UHC La Quinta LP Archaeological/Paleontological Consultant: TRC Companies (Greig Parker, RPA) P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\HPC 6-17-04.doc n... 0113 Last printed 7/13/04 1:07 PM Historic Preservation Commission June 17. 2004 Location: East of Dune Palms Road, approximately 650 feet south of Highway 111. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked if any of the persons in attendance represented the builder. 3. Mr. John Beardall, 1124 Main Street, Irvine, California introduced himself as the project manager/consultant for UHC La Quinta Limited Partners. He was available to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. In addition, the cultural resources consultants, Greig Parker and Christopher Drover were in attendance from TRC Solutions, 21 Technology, Irvine, California. 4. Commissioner Sharp had a concern about digging deep enough for a swimming pool or any subterranean garage. He wanted to know exactly how deep they were going to dig. 5. Mr. Beardall replied they were not going to approach the 100 meter depth. They will probably only dig about 5 to 10 feet for a small swimming pool. 6. Commissioner Wilbur said in the original correspondence there was a contact list suggested by the Heritage Commission. He wanted to know if any attempt had been made to contact any of those individuals. 7. Mr. Drover, Archaeologist for TRC Solutions, replied no, it was an addendum to the methods search. This was a Phase I and this type of contact would normally not be made during the Phase I. 8. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if there was any early scoping on this project. Mr. Drover replied nothing prior to the survey. 9. Commissioner Sharp commented this is a very sensitive area and he was amazed nothing was found. 004 2 Historic Preservation Commission June 17. 2004 10. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if a (GLO) Government Land Office search had been completed for homesteading and land granting. Mr. Parker replied a previous records search had found nothing. 11. Chairperson Mouriquand said there were a number of homesteads and land grants all throughout La Quinta. She asked if the work by James and Moore had been cited in the references as she was unable to locate the reference. Mr. Parker replied they did not actually do the GLO records search. The original search was done by Bruce Love and Tom Tang. 12. Chairperson Mouriquand asked how close the Coachella Canal was to the property and stated the Canal was determined to be eligible for the National Register. Given the proximity to the Whitewater River and the long zone of sites, it was interesting that nothing was found. 13. Mr. Parker said he had completed previous studies in the area and did find some significant sites, but nothing was found on this site. 14. Chairperson Mouriquand said the Commission prefers the Phase I studies include early scoping letters to the local tribes, which are the Cabazon, Augustine, and the Torres Martinez Bands. The Commission also encourages the early contact of these Bands looking for any ethnographic information such as sacred sites or any concerns they might have in the language and recommendations for mitigation measures. It would have been nice to have a discussion on more of the historic information on La Quinta and commentary on the GLO search. She felt enough concerns had been addressed and she did not have a (problem with the report. 15. Commissioner Sharp thanked the applicant for the nice presentation. 16. Commissioner Wilbur asked for a recap of what was recommended. Staff pointed out the conditions. 9 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 17. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the applicant, or stafi', could forward a copy of this report to the three Bands in the form of a scoping letter. Possibly they could be asked to respond back by a certain date if there are additional mitigation measures they wish to put forward. Staff requested the applicant be required to submit proof, to the Community Development Department, indicating the tribes had been contacted and would provide someone for monitoring if it was required. 18. Chairperson Mouriquand commented almost all of the Bands are requiring a tribal monitor, not just for the construction monitoring, but also during surveying. This is a new policy being requested. Staff replied this could be included in Condition A. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-012 accepting the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the La Quinta Family Apartments, with the following added to Condition 1.A.: The applicant shall provide proof the local tribes, consisting of the Torres -Martinez, Augustine and Cabazon Bands, have been contacted and will have a representative available for monitoring if required. Unanimously approved. 20. Commissioner Wilbur had a comment on the Paleontological Report. He recalled there had previously been discussion regarding the depths of 10 or 30 feet. After revievving the report he was wondering if it wouldn't be helpful to define what the word "deep" means with respect to the upper layers of the quadrant area. The report states "below that" and does not explain what depth the report refers to. 21. Chairperson Mouriquand added it is necessary to consider the nature of the project. This project is a residential project and the excavation will probably be three to five feet with an on -site retention basin. Mr. Beardall stated they would not be going below 10 feet in any area of the project. Staff said this would only be a concern if a well site was proposed and there was none. 006 4 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-013 accepting the Phase I Paleontological Survey for the La Quinta Family Apartments, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. B. Paleontological Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 32201; Applicant: Choice Enterprise Paleontological Consultant: CRM Tech (Harry Quinn) Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairperson Mouriquand asked why the Commission was asked to review the report when the records search had not been completed. Staff replied there was an indication, in the report, the Commission could place conditions on the project prior to taking final CEQA action, if it was necessary. Staff understood, the applicant came to certain conclusions on their site, based upon information obtained from surrounding sites. Staff has taken this into consideration when the recommendations were prepared. Staff reminded the Commission, based on previous meetings, the applicant had expressed his wishes to process this application as early as possible and that was the reason it was submitted without the response from the San Bernardino County Museum. 3. Chairperson Mouriquand was concerned about receiving an incomplete report. The purpose of doing the reports is to answer the CEQA questions so you have all the information you need to decide if there's any impact on resources, what the significance of the resources are and what the appropriate mitigation should be. If the report is incomplete it is difficult to make a recommendation. Staff replied they did give the applicant credit for the fact the report was prepared as if it had the potential of having a highly significant impact on the site. Chairperson Mouriquand stated she did know in this area a significant clam bed was found nearby. C07 5 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 4. Staff introduced Gabriel Lujan,74818 Velie Way, Suite 12, Palm Desert. Mr. Lujan said he was unaware the report was incomplete but was there to represent the client and answer any questions the Commission might have. 5. Chairperson Mouriquand advised him the Commission does require complete reports. 6. Commissioner Wilbur said he was uncomfortable with making a recommendation using an incomplete report. Staff did offer some recommendations: 1) the Commission could wait and continue the matter to another meeting date; 2) place a condition requiring the applicant submit the information to staff and if complete staff could approve it to move the CEQA process along; or 3) follow the current staff recommendations. 7. Mr. Lujan stated he did not have any problems with either recommendations 2 or 3, and if staff didn't feel comfortable with the information provided, he would be more than glad to come back in. 8. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Commission would be imeeting during the month of July. Staff replied yes. 9. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if there were any issues that could come back which would cause the Commissioners to be concerned. 10. Commissioner Sharp commented this issue had to do with protocol. 11. Chairperson Mouriquand said she didn't want to establish a precedent for accepting incomplete reports. She did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission and didn't fulfill the requirements of CEQA. She added the Commission didn't want to be unfriendly to developers, but they had rules and regulations they had to abide by. She asked if there was any situation or information that could come back from this records search which the Commission might want to see and consider. 12. Commissioner Sharp replied it was a relatively small (piece of property and its residential construction with a high water table. 6 008 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 13. Chairperson Mouriquand was concerned since the clam bed found by Dr. Chace was not at any great depth. The site was documented as a Paleontological Locality. It was not necessary to go very deep to get into the invertebrate fossils. 14. Commissioner Sharp commented there was a row of tamarisks trees on site and wanted to know if they had been removed. 15. Mr. Lujan replied the tamarisk trees were scheduled to be removed and would be monitored as the Commission previously requested. 16. Commissioner Wilbur stated he thought tension was created by the difficult decision between processing a report by the book, or reviewing an incomplete report and then fast -tracking the project on an individual basis. He sympathized with the applicant, but was not amenable to reviewing the report without information from the San Bernardino County Museum. Staff replied possibly the Commission could give staff some direction in terms of the protocol regarding acceptable reports. If the client does not have a response from the Museum, how much weight should staff give to the applicant for collecting information from surrounding areas. Staff requested direction on how to handle the issue if the report recommends monitoring of the site versus the fact the comments have not been received from the San Bernardino County Museum. Staff would like guidance on how to evaluate these reports. 17. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the commentary coming from the San Bernardino County Museum represents the most local repository and is the most important records search. She would feel more comfortable accepting the report if the information was coming from the Los Angeles County Museum. She has found that information from the various repositories can be identical, but not always. She questioned if something massive were found on a nearby site what additional mitigation measures could be recommended that were not already recommended. Monitoring is already listed as a condition and that would be all the Commission could recommend. Her major concern was in establishing a precedent in accepting an incomplete report, but she did not want to be unreasonable to the applicant. She said she could not imagine any comment 7 w rig Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 coming back from the San Bernardino County Museum that would really alter the recommendations for mitigation already established. Staff thanked her for her comments about incomplete reports and, in the future, would pass them along to the applicants. Staff also added the applicants were commonly advised it is their prerogative to submit information to the Commission, incomplete or not. It is the Commission's prerogative to turn down the applicant's requests due to incomplete reports. 18. Commissioner Wilbur said he understood the value of comparative areas but discoveries are made all the time in very specific locations not related to surrounding discoveries. Staff added the final action would be determined by the City Council. So there were actually two more opportunities for this project to be reviewed. 19. Commissioner Sharp commented this was the third time this project had been brought before the Commission. Staff replied the applicant was aware of the Commission's concern. The applicant's representative, Mr. Lujan, said he would look into the lack of reply from the San Bernardino County Museum and would have an answer back to staff by the end of week. 20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-014 accepting the Paleontological Resources Assessment for Tentative Tract 32202 amended: Recommendation 3: Information received from a records search from the San Bernardino County Museum will be submitted to Community Development Department staff for approval prior to continuance of the project. If staff deems the information to be complete, applicant will re -submit the report to the Historic Preservation Commission for its further consideration. Unanimously approved. r�� 8 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 C. Historical/Archaeological Resources and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-01 1; Applicant: D.U.C. Housing Partners Archaeological/Paleontological Consultant: CRM Tech Location: North side of Avenue 58, approximately one-half mile west of Madison Street. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file; in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Wilbur asked if there was any information found in the historic search. Staff replied it did not. 3. Chairperson Mouriquand said she recalled the area where the property is located as being very sensitive for recorded sites, and materials that have been picked up by avocational collectors. The area has proven to be highly sensitive and there have been cremations and ceremonial offering caches found close by. Therefore, the Commission would definitely want to have it monitored. 4. Commissioner Sharp asked if the application was just for a housing development 5. Chairperson Mouriquand was concerned the report did not recommend monitoring considering the sensitivity of the area. She was glad to see staff was recommending it. She noticed the firm doing the survey used 15 meter spaced transects. Staff replied all reports the Commission reviewed at this meeting used the same criteria. 6. Chairperson Mouriquand replied 15 meters is approximately 50 feet, or 25 feet on center. It would be difficult to spot a pot shard, point, or any other small item, at a distance of 25 feet on either side of a person. Federal Standards are 10 meters which is approximately 30 feet. That would be 15 feet on each side of a person. She was concerned about the efficiency of a report using these methods and past reports used 10 meter transects. Staff reiterated all reports are now using 15 meters. Chairperson Mouriquand said she hoped this was not a trend for more cost effectiveness at the sacrifice of adequate survey 9 oil Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 coverage. She was wondering if staff and the Commission should consider a policy, about how wide the transects should be. Traditionally the archaeology in this area does not consist of large items and 50 feet apart is too far. Small items could be missed. Staff asked the Commissioners to agendize this item and bring it back for discussion. Chairperson Mouriquand again expressed her concern because this section of land is in a highly sensitive area and she was worried about small items being overlooked. She was glad staff was recommending monitoring, but there was not enough appreciation on the part of the consultant for the sensitivity of this area as evidenced by the lack of discussion and recommendation for monitoring. She supported staff's recommendations for the report. 7. Chairperson Mouriquand said all of this area was formerly part of the Kennedy Ranch. The Kennedy Ranch was loaded with artifacts, at one point in time. An extensive collection has been retained by the original owners. She commented it could simply be this was such a small area there was just nothing heft and the land so disturbed there was nothing left on the surface, but there still could be a high potential for subsurface finds. The Coral Mountain area is within a mile -and -a -half of this project and is also very sensitive, as well as the Quarry which is highly sensitive as evidence by some earlier work by CRM Tech. 8. Commissioner Wilbur asked if it was possible to add a recommendation about the halting of earth moving equipment if something is found. 9. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it was already included in the conditions. However, grading operators generally don't look or stop for a cache of something. She felt it was an ineffective mitigation measure and preferred on -site monitoring. 10. Commissioner Wilbur verified with staff that monitoring had been added as a condition. Staff replied it had. 11. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the Commission would see the monitoring reports when they come back. Staff replied yes, when they are submitted. 012 10 Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 12. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the consultants had contacted the tribes. The applicants needed to provide evidence they had contacted the tribes in the form of a scoping letter, and if they had not received a reply, they needed to provide that information as well. She also asked if they had contacted the Heritage Commission. Staff replied there was no indication the tribes were contacted. Chairperson Mouriquand said in the research methods on Page 5, there was no discussion regarding contact of the Heritage Commission or any of the three local tribes. She suggested, prior to CEQA action, the applicant submit evidence of contact with the Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine Band, as well as the Native American Heritage Commission. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-015 accepting the Historical/Archaeological Resources Assessment Report for Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-011, subject to conditions prepared by staff as well as the following condition: D. Applicant shall amend the report to include proof of contact, prior to CEQA action, indicating the applicant has contacted the Cabazon, Torres Martinez, and Augustine Bands, as well as the Native American Heritage Commission. Unanimously approved. 14. Chairperson Mouriquand commented there shouldn't be any problems due to the elevations. Because this site was once under water, there is the possibility of finding invertebrates as well as clam beds, but they would be picked up during monitoring. 15. Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp had no further comments. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-016 accepting the Paleontological Resources Assessment for Assessor's Parcel No. 762-240-011, subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. 0,13 �� Historic Preservation Commission June 17, 2004 VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. There was discussion of the July 15, 2004 training session. Staff advised they would have most of the Community Development Department staff in attendance. Since there will be Commission items to be reviewed, the meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and continue in the Council Chambers at 2:00 p.m. for the training. Chairperson Mouriquand said the training would be focused on the ARMR Format and how it should be followed. She would be using the ARMR checklist to illustrate how to review a report. B. Commissioner Wilbur asked about the press release for May — "Historic Preservation" month. Staff said an article would be in the La Quinta Gem regarding Historic Preservation Month and highlighting the 10"' Anniversary of the Commission. C. Commissioner Sharp asked about the rescheduling of Gary Resvaloso's attendance at a future meeting. Staff replied they had continued contacting Mr. Resvaloso, but had not received a response. The Commissioners suggested staff try another strategy in contacting Mr. Resvaloso. D. Chairperson Mouriquand brought up the subject of the width of the transects. She commented this could be added to an upcoming meeting agenda. The Commission could set policy as to how they want the reports done, since they are a CLG Agency. She also commented the Federal Agencies require 10 feet, but that didn't mean the Commission had to require 10 feet. However, it is very difficult to do a thorough job when you are responsible for looking at a 50 foot swath. She added the Commission should have a discussion about accepting incomplete reports, as well as how to handle blended Archaeo/Palen reports. 014 12 Historic Preservation Commission June 17. 2004 E. Chairperson Mouriquand will be conducting a mobile workshop, October 19, 2004, as part of the American Planning Association's Annual Conference, in Palm Springs, at the Wyndham Hotel. It will be a bus tour to the Coral Mountain Regional Park Site area. There will be speeches given on the pre -history, history, rock art in the tufa, bedrock mortars in the tufa, and general archaeological and historical discussion on creating a Regional Park. The discussion will be regarding how to plan a regional park and take the cultural resources, pre -history, and history, and weave it in. This would be good planning. The tour will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 12:00 p.m. The tour was set up for conference attendees but staff will be looking into attendance by the Commissioners. If that is not possible, Chairperson Mouriquand may be able to set up a tour for the Commission. The APA bus tour will include aisle side instruction on the local sites and history of the Valley. She added the groundbreaking, for the Regional Park, is slated for November. This will be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. Vill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp and Wilbur to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission to the next Meeting to be held on ,July 15, 2004 at 1:00 p.m.. This meeting of the Historical Preservation Commission was adjourned at 4:27 p.m. Unanimously approved. Submitted by: Carolyn Walker Secretary 01 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 15, 2004 ITEM: REVISED PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT ON THE BERMUDA DUNES PROPERTY LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DARBY ROAD, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND PALM ROYALE DRIVE APPLICANT: TAHITI PARTNERS ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: L&L ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (LESLIE NAY IRISH, PRINCIPAL) PREVIOUS REVIEW This report was previously reviewed at the Historic Preservation Commissiion (HPC) meeting of May 20, 2004, and continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide the following four items (Attachment 1): 1.) A General Land Office (GLO) records search needs to be done for any homestead or land grant activities on the property. 2.) A discussion is needed of the local history as part of the cultural resources investigation procedure. 3.) Scoping letters to the Cabazon, Torres Martinez and Augustine Indian Bands should be provided. 4.) There were references to past ranching and agricultural activities. An explanation should be provided of what evidence was on the property for consideration of past ranching and agricultural activities. The applicant has submitted a revised report for the Commission's review (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND The property is a rectangular 5-acre parcel in north La Quinta on Darby Road and proposed to be subdivided into a residential project and annexed into the City. The parcel is vacant but appears to have been used for ranching, dumping and off -road vehicles in the past. A revised Phase I (survey level) archaeological assessment has been completed for the property for a pre -annexation Tentative Tract map application that is being processed by the City. This study will be part of the Environmental P:\stan\hpc\rpt it 31087 revised ph I Tahiti.doc 016 Assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act for the project application. The assessment includes a records search and field reconnaissance of the property, along with archival research. DISCUSSION ON REVISIONS The Historic Period discussion has been expanded with additional information on the local history added (see page 10 of revised report). Previous references to the Paleo- Indian Period of North America, the Archaic Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period have been deleted. Additional historic documents searches added were at the Bureau of Land Management, Desert District and Sacramento Offices, Riverside County Transportation Department, Riverside County Recorders Office and on the General Land Office website (page 16). The additional Historic searches indicated that the land was deeded to Iona T. Mckensie in 1918 as a homestead (Patent no. 615547). The report indicates no historic use of the property, including ranching, has occurred. Letters were mailed and faxed to the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Torrez-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for comments on the project (page 19). Three negative or no comment responses were received. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians noted the site is not in their Tribe's Traditional Use area, but requested that the monitor's include one of their tribe. Staff does not feel this is appropriate. Two were in writing and are attached to the report, while the third was via telephone. The original staff report is attached and discusses the other aspects of the report (Attachment 3). The conclusions and recommendations contained in the revised report concur with those in the original report. Generally, they recommend monitoring of all earth -moving and grading of the project site. The revised report has addressed the four concerns raised during the May 20, HPC review. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2004- , accepting the Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the 5-acres ±8 Acres — Revised Final, as prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the report and following conditions: PAstan\hpc\rpt tt 31087 revised ph I Tahiti.doc - 017 The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Attachments: 1 . Excerpt of May 20, 2004, Historic Preservation Commission meeting 2. Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the Bermuda Dunes Property, a 5- Acres — Revised Final (Commissioners only) 3. Staff report for May 20, 2004 HPC meeting Prepared by Stan Sawa, Principal Planner P:\stan\hpc\rpt tt 31087 revised ph I Tahiti.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 e) There was mention f a prickly pear cactus garden, and discussion of how the past activities on the property were associated ith ranching and agriculture. Provide clarification of a nature of the ranching, or the agriculture, and hether they were historic activities. f) There were neralized discussions on the different paleontology, Indian sections, archaeology, but the conclusions ere not complete on identification and how the project elates to the site area. g) Supply s rce references of historical maps used. h) All re por s listed on the reference list. 15. Ms. Blevins fisked how soon they could expect the commments back. Staff replied as soon as the minutes could be done they would tra smit the letter with general comments, and suggestio s including the excerpts from the minutes. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp o adopt Minute Motion 2004-008 to return the Phase I Arch eological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 318 2 to L & L Environmental for completion, with revisions as sta ed above, for the Commission's review at a future meeting. U animously approved. C. Phase I Archaeological Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 31087 Applicant: Tahiti Partners Archaeological Consultant: L & L Environmental, Inc. Location: South side of Darby Road, east of Washington Street 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp commented this was a heavily developed area. 019 0 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 3. Commissioner Puente asked when a Phase II was required. Chairperson Mouriquand explained the Phase II was required when there was something found requiring additional efforts to determine its significance. Also, when the monitor has evidence there may be subsurface artifacts. Subsurface testing may be needed to decide how to craft the mitigation or preservation treatment. 4. Commissioner Puente said in one of the recommendations mentioned under 5.3.1) Archaeology Recommendations (1), Page 16 of the report, there was a request to develop a mitigation plan. Did this mean the archaeologist was anticipating they would be likely to find something? 5. Chairperson Mouriquand replied that was standard language used in the industry. This phrasing allows for justification of monitoring if something is found. If monitoring is recommended, the monitor works with the client and their grading schedule to design an appropriate level of mitigation and monitoring. Some projects don't warrant a full-time monitor. Sometimes the focus is in a certain area. Sometimes you do spot checks to customize the monitoring program to fit the needs of the project. That would be what they were discussing in this report. Staff replied that was right. Ms. Mouriquand added this project would require a lower level of monitoring effort than required for a village site. 6. Commissioner Wilbur commented the surrounding area seems to have some considerable sites and it would be particularly unique if this site had nothing. 7. Chairperson Mouriquand replied from all the past research, and surveys in that area, it is a highly sensitive area. The parcel may be surrounded by development, but that does not mean there might not be something subsurface on the property. She concurred that monitoring would be appropriate even though nothing was found at the Phase I level. You have to consider what the probability is of something being found on the site. n., 020 C_ 7 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 8. Chairperson Mouriquand made the following comments to Report Archaeologist, Ms. Kristie Blevins: a) A General Land Office (GLO) records search needed to be done for any homestead or land grant historic activities on the property. b) A discussion was needed of the local history as part of the cultural resources investigation procedure. c) Scoping letters to the Cabazon, Torres Martinez and Augustine Indian Bands should be provided. d) There were references to past ranching and agricultural activities. An explanation should be provided of what evidence was on the property for consideration of past ranching and agricultural activities. 9. Chairperson Mouriquand asked about the report comment saying most of the study area had been developed. Was this referring to the radius or the project itself? Ms. Blevins replied it referred to the radius. 10. Chairperson Mouriquand continued the Cultural Context discussion on the Paleo-Indian Period, the Archaic Period, and the Late Prehistoric Period needed to be more relevant to the local area, to create the local, cultural context. The Late Prehistoric discussion was very short. It referenced the LuiseFio, and the generalized San Luis Rey complex, but it didn't discuss Cahuilla, late prehistory archaeology and culture at all. It didn't discuss prehistory at all or tie it into the Cahuilla or local tribes. There was mention of Luiseno and San Luis complex, which is considered regional, but there is no discussion of the local area. 11. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if there was a source of references for the historical maps. Ms. Blevins replied the historic maps would have been from the Eastern Information Center (EIC). 12. Chairperson Mouriquand said there was discussion about Federal Laws. Was this because there was Federal involvement in this project, or is this a CEQA project. Staff replied this was a CEQA project. rl 1 f= 8 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 13. Chairperson Mouriquand had some additional comments centered on the historic period and explanation of the ranching that was identified as being associated with the parcel. She suggested, rather than going over each item, staff could provide Ms. Blevins with a commentary to assist her in revising the report. Ms. Blevins replied that would be very helpful. 14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Sharp and Puente to adopt Minute Motion 2004-009 to return the Phase I Archaeology Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 31087, to L & L Environmental for completion, with revisions as stated above, for the Commission for review at a future meeting. Unanimously approved. D. terim Phase haeolo ical Test Program for Tentative Tr ct Map 32201 App'cant: Choice Enterprise Arch ological Consultant: Archaeological Advisory Group Locatio : Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 60 1. Prin al Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contai ed in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Commu Nty Development Department. 2. Commissio r Sharp asked if the tamarisks had been taken out. The applicants representative, Dave Saccullo, 74-923 Highway 1 1 1, Suite 11 Indian Wells, California, introduced himself and replied the tam risks had not been taken out. He had been notified he need r a Paleontology Report which was currently being done by ke Hogan of CRM TECH, and should be available by June 1 2004. Mr. Saccullo asked if he had the Paleontologist submi a letter verifying there have been no relevant sites at this I cation could he go ahead with clearing and grubbing. Staff in icated that the client's position as long as the Paleontological eport and monitoring were done it would be acceptable. ey would need to check to make certain that the person d ing the monitoring was qualified. Dave Saccullo said Mike ogan's firm would be doing the Archaeology and Paleontolog monitoring. 'N.. 022 0 ATTACHMENT 3 DATE: ITEM: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: BACKGROUND: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 20, 2004 FILE COPY PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY, REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 31087 SOUTH SIDE OF DARBY ROAD, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND PALM ROYALE DRIVE TAHITI PARTNERS L&L ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (LESLIE NAY IRISH, PRINCIPAL) The property is a rectangular 5-acre parcel in north La Quinta on Darby Road and proposed to be subdivided and annexed into the City. The parcel is vacant but appears to have been used for ranching, dumping and off -road vehicles in the past. A Phase I (survey level) archaeological assessment has been completed for the property for a pre -annexation Tentative Tract map application that is being processed by the City. This study will be part of the Environmental Assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act for the project application. The assessment includes a records search and field reconnaissance of the property, along with archival research. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION: An archaeological records search for the property was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside. The records search indicated that the study area had not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. An archival search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at UC Riverside and the California Office of Historic Preservation Directory of Historic Properties, the National Register of Historic Places, California State Historic Landmarks, the California Points of Historic Interest List, Historic maps covering modern La Quinta, topographic quadrangles and other reference materials. The search did not show any cultural activity in the study area. Within a one -mile radius of the property three historic wells/foundations, one historic highway and trail, 10 prehistoric isolates, two prehistoric ceramic scatters and one p:\stan\hpc\hpc rpt tt 31087 ph Ldoc n 2 3 �• li prehistoric archaeological site have been recorded from a total of 36 previous surveys. In conclusion, the records search and background research led to the conclusion that the study area is in a location that is sensitive for prehistoric resources. The field survey conducted by L&L archaeologists consisted of systematically walking over the site at 5-meter intervals and visually observing the site for artifacts. As a result of the survey no prehistoric materials were found. The possibility of finding buried archaeological resources is there because of the .sensitivity for prehistoric resources in the area. Therefore, archaeological monitoring of all brush clearing, grubbing, trenching and earth -moving activities is recommended in the report under the supervision of a Registered Professional Archaeologist. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2004- , accepting the Phase I Archeological Survey Report on the 5-acres, ±8 Acres as prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the report and following conditions: 1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Attachment: 1. Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852, ±8 Acres (Commissioners only) Prepared by: 24 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\hpc\hpc rpt tt 31087 ph I.doc HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 15, 2004 ITEM: REVISED PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT ON TRACT 31852, ±8 ACRES LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AVENUE 52 APPLICANT: EHLINE COMPANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT: L&L ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (LESLIE NAY IRISH, PRINCIPAL) PREVIOUS REVIEW This matter was previously reviewed at the May 20, 2004, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting and continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide additional revision (Attachment 1). Eight specific items were rioted as follows: 1.) Provide a General Land Office records search for any homesteaded properties. 2.) Discuss the local history and the historic and prehistoric period context. 3.) Discuss the local archaeology and how the site relates to it. 4.) Correct the Native American reference from the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians to the Cabazon Band. Provide Scoping Letters to the Cabazon, Torres Martinez and Augustine Indian Bands. Provide written responses and include in Appendix. 5.) There was mention of a prickly pear cactus garden, and discussion of how the past activities on the property were associated with ranching and agriculture. Provide clarification of the nature of the ranching, or the agriculture, and whether they were historic activities. 6.) There were generalized discussions on the different paleontology, Indian sections, archaeology, but the conclusions are not complete on identification and how the project relates to the site area. 7.) Supply source references of historical maps used. 8.) Provide all reports listed on the reference list. The applicant has submitted a revised report for the Commissions review (Attachment 2). pI\stan\hpc\hpc rpt ph 1 tt 31852 rev 1 ehline.doc 2 5 BACKGROUND: The property is a rectangular 8-acre parcel in south La Quinta on the northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 52. The parcel is vacant but had been planted in date palm trees in the past. A revised Phase I (survey level) archaeological and paleontological assessment has been completed for the property for a Tentative Tract map application that is being processed by the City. This study will be part of the Environmental Assessment required by the California Environmental Quality Act for the project application. The assessment includes a records search and field reconnaissance of the property, along with archival research. The archaeological and paleontological assessments were conducted independently, but have been included together in the same document. DISCUSSION ON REVISI Additional historic documents searches included the Bureau of Land Management, Desert District and Sacramento Offices, Riverside County Transportation Department, Riverside County Recorders Office and on the General Land Office website (see page 17 of revised report). The additional Historic searches indicated that the project site and larger surrounding area in 1909 (the earliest records available), was owned by the Page famiily. The report indicates date palm trees were planted on the property sometime between 1953 and 1959. The orchard was removed from the site between 1980 and 1984. The report concludes no further historic research is necessary since the site is now vacant. The Historic Period discussion has been expanded with additional information on the local history added (see page 11 of revised report). Letters were mailed and faxed to the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, the Torrez-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for comments on the project (page 25). Also, Rob Wood of the Native American Heritage Commission was again notified via telephone. Four responses were received indicating no interest in the site. The Torrez-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians did request that a tribe member be included because this site is within the Tribe's Traditional Use area. This request is recommended as a condition of approval. The report notes the prickly pear garden near the northwest corner of the site is a modern feature, planted less than 50 years old (page 2). Additionally, there is a pl\stan\hpc\hpc rpt ph 1 tt 31852 rev 1 ehline.doc •14.. _ 026 modern -age corral and propane tank nearby. A standard archaeological form for the one isolate found was submitted to the Eastern Information Center for filing. The revised report includes the new references cited in the report. The original staff report is attached and includes the other aspects of the report (Attachment 3). The conclusions and recommendations contained in the revised report concur with those in the original report. Generally, they recommend monitoring of all earth -moving and grading on the project site by both archaeological and paleontological monitors. The revised report addresses the concerns raised during the May 20, HPC review. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2004- , accepting the Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852, ±8 Acres as prepared by L&L Environmental, Inc., subject to the recommendations in the report and following conditions: 1. The site shall be monitored during on and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of first earth -moving or clearing permit. Monitors to include a representative of the Torrez-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. 2. The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 3. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. 4. On- and off -site monitoring in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Proof that a C121 pl\stan\hpc\hpc rpt ph 1 tt 31852 rev 1 ehline.doc monitor has been retained shall be given to City prior to issuance of first earth - moving permit, or before any clearing of the site is begun. 5. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. 6. A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City prior to the first occupancy of a residence being granted by the City. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 7. Collected resources and related reports, etc. shall be given to the City. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry. Attachment 1 . Excerpt of May 20, 2004, Historic Preservation Commission meeting 2. Phase I Archeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852, ±8 Acres — Revised Final (Commissioners only) 3. Staff report for the May 20, 2004 meeting Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner 028 pl\stan\hpc\hpc rpt ph 1 tt 31852 rev 1 ehline.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 1. Principal Plan/natan Sawa presented the information contained in tf report, a opy of which is on file in the Community Deent Dep tment. 2. Commissionerur c men.ted on the first condition regarding earthng a d grading. He asked if that meant the relocation of e quantity of earth. Staff replied the condition refey type of earth moving or clearing of vegetation, anhing.3. Commissioner commented the Commission was aware this is a sensrea and was in favor of an archaeologist monitoring the 4. CommissiOV6r Puente and Chairperson Mouriquand agreed with staff's req6mmenclations. 5. ZPalontological moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente and to adopt Minute Motion 2004-007 accepting the Resources Assessment Report for Tentative ap 32072, Assessors Parcel Numbers 772-410-021 and the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California, Unanimously approved. B. Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852 Applicant: Ehline Company Archaeological Consultant: L & L Environmental, Inc. Location: Northwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 52 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Sharp asked what a lacustrine adaptation was. Chairperson Mouriquand replied it referred to a lake environment. Commissioner Sharp said he thought this was a very interesting report, full of history and cultural background. 029 2 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 3. Commissioner Puente asked who appointed the archaeological monitor. Chairperson Mouriquand replied the applicant is required to contract with someone who is on the County List for professional monitoring. When tribal monitoring is required, the tribe appoints someone who is qualified. Staff added the applicant has to provide the City with evidence of the monitor's qualifications. 4. Commissioner Puente commented on the amount of artifacts collected and wanted to know where they were being stored. Staff replied artifact storage was an item that needed to be discussed. New laws are now in effect regarding how cities can collect and store resources. There will have to be discussion on whether the artifacts can be stored locally. 5. Commissioner Wilbur asked if there was any response from the Native Americans. Staff replied they contacted the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and the Native American Heritage Commission. They received no comments back. 6. Chairperson Mouriquand commented on the fact that Archeological and Paleontological Resources Reports require two different disciplines with different criteria. When they are combined in one report, it becomes difficult to read and can create a problem if something of significance is found requiring detailed discussion. She had additional comments on the archaeology portion but chose to include them in the upcoming conference call with the archaeologist. She added the report needed to relate the history, activities, and the project site in order to determine the significance and eligibility for both the State and National Registers. She found the report lacking and incomplete. 7. Project Archaeologist, Kristie R. Blevins, was unable to attend the meeting and was introduced, via a conference call, to answer any questions the Commissioners had. 030 3 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 8. Chairperson Mouriquand asked Ms. Blevins about her comments on past ranching and agricultural activities and how she had arrived at her conclusions. Ms. Blevins replied there were remnants of what appeared to be ranching activities, including a cactus garden and various animal pens•, Chairperson Mouriquand asked Ms. Blevins what these things dated to. Ms. Blevins replied they are modern. 9. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if a records search had been done, through the General Land Office (GLO), searching for homesteading and other.types of land granting activities on the property. Ms. Blevins replied it had not. She did the records search through the historical map and properties available at the Eastern Information Center. 10. Chairperson Mouriquand said she did not find any general contextual discussion on the local history in the report and the whole historic period was not considered in the report. Ms. Blevins replied they focused more on the prehistoric period because of the prehistoric pottery found on the property. Chairperson Mouriquand commented this was supposed to be a Cultural Resources Investigation and should have included not only the prehistory, but the historic period. Ms. Blevins replied that was correct. 11. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if the Torres Martinez or Augustine Band of Indians had been contacted as part of the project scoping and consultation effort. Ms. Blevins replied she thought a letter had been sent to the Cahuilla Band. Chairperson Mouriquand said the Cahuilla Band is located in the Anza Valley and a Scoping Letter should have gone to the Cabazon Band. Ms. Blevins replied she was not famihiar with this part of the report. She believed her associates had made contact with Rob Wood of the Native American Heritage Commission to find out who and where to make contact. She didn't personally speak to Rob Wood so she didn't know what went on with that particular conversation, but could find out. Chairperson Mouriquand asked if they sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission for a sacred land search. Ms. Blevins replied she thought it was done over the phone and not in a formal letter. Chairperson Mouriquand suggested she C31 4 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 might want to put it in writing to the Native American Heritage Commission. They could then respond, in writing, with comments and an attached list identifying the appropriate Bands to consult. 12. Chairperson Mouriquand stated the Commission needed to have the RPA (Registered Professional Archaeologist) sign and certify the report. Ms. Blevins replied the signatory, Leslie Nay Irish, is the Principal. Chairperson Mouriquand stated Ms. Irish was not a qualified Archaeologist, according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The report has to be signed by somebody who is duly qualified to certify these kinds of reports, as well as certification by the Paleontologist. Ms. Blevins replied it would be done. 13. Chairperson Mouriquand suggested the report be. handed back to the Consultant for completion and correction and resubmitted for review at the next Commission meeting. Ms. Blevins was told staff would be sending a letter, with comments, .on the reports for her revision. 14. Staff restated the following items needed to be addressed: a) A General Land Office records search for any homesteaded properties. b) Discussion of local history and the historic and prehistoric period context. c) Discussion of the local archaeology and how the site relates to it. d) Correct the Native American reference from the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians to the Cabazon Band. Provide Scoping Letters to the Cabazon, Torres Martinez and Augustine Indian Bands. Provide written responses and include in Appendix. 032 5 Historic Preservation Commission May 20, 2004 e) There was mention of a prickly pear cactus garden, and discussion of how the past activities on the property were associated with ranching and agriculture. Provide clarification of the nature . of the ranching, or the agriculture, and whether they were historic activities. f) There were generalized discussions on the different paleontology, Indian sections, archaeology, but the conclusions were not complete on identification and how the project relates to the site area. g) Supply source references of historical maps used. h) All reports listed on the reference list. 15. Ms. Blevins asked how soon they could expect the comments back. Staff replied as soon as the minutes could be done they would transmit the letter with general comments, and suggestions including the excerpts from the minutes. 16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wilbur and Sharp to adopt Minute Motion 2004-008 to return the Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report on Tract 31852 to L & L Environmental for completion, with revisions as stated above, for the Commission's review'at a future meeting. Unanimously approved. C. Phase -I -Archaeological Survey Report for Tentative Tract Map 31087 pplicant: Tahiti Partners A haeologicaI Consultant: L & L Environmental, Inc. Loc tion: South side of Darby Road, east of Washington Street 1. pryncipal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information co6 ained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Comiunity Development Department. 2. Commis�koner Sharp commented this was a heavily developed area. C33 6 INVITATION 034 You are cordially invited To attend an Archaeological Training Session Sponsored by the City of La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission On July 15, 2004 From 2:00 — 5:00 p.m. in the City Of La Quinta Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California The training will focus on — Archaeological Reports — How To Review Them ➢ Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) Format ➢ Phase I Inventory Reports ➢ Phase II Testing/Evaluation Reports 7= How to tell when a report satisfied CEQA Handouts and checklists will be provided to all participants. If you would be interested in attending this meeting, please R.S.V.P. to Carolyn Walker at (760) 777-7125. Please note: This meeting qualifies for CLG credit 035 POWER POINT PRESENTATION AND NOTES C36 •. OHP published format in 1989 { • Recommended, not mandatory, ��'Cover,Letter's 1 Ai ze Ipurpose and intent of study tgency s official position o �'I° Title Page' F • Consistent information, and format T'ak •'_include' if rep Mana( S'ummlar ntIs �UNDERTAKINU INFORMATION - INTRODUCTION Undertaking is the proposed project for SETTING RESEARCH DESIGN Statementof theoretical and i , Must always • Length land ,+..A" 61 IMO Lfd II • Results of re REPO �PHASEIF METHODS be included etai� �wdl Iaryj�wth typelof i Sr, ON :1 1 111 ,. DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATION Discuss results ofi study as relates to .,.MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS''— PHASE 9 Identify) the management,status of CMANAGEMENT,,, CONSIDERATIONS' PHASE II Evaluation�is cor erstone I establishes IREF�FRENCES _ •, Check this section againd text, as too APP NDI CONFIDENT Not for public di; r CES',. (see list in ARMR DICES 'P... 043 ARMR CHECKLIST 0444 Checklist for Preparing and Reviewing Archaeological Resource Management Reports Name of Undertaking: Name of Report: Preparer of Report: Reviewer/Agency: Cover Letters (see page 1 of ARMR Guidelines) Date: ❑ Provide the undertaking's name and location, and any identifying number. ❑ State agency name and where applicable, district, region, or branch. ❑ Briefly describe the undertaking (type, acreage, components, scheduling). ❑ Describe the point that compliance with historic preservation law has reached. ❑ Describe the phase and/or type of investigation addressed by the document. Describe the results of the investigation. Indicate what compliance action is being requested under applicable laws. ❑ name agency contact person administering, or most familiar with the undertaking and study. II. Title Page (page 2) ❑ List the authors and consulting firm. ❑ Date the report by month and year. ❑ The report title. ❑ Identify the entity (e.g., agency, local government) submitting the report. ❑ Identify the party to whom the document was submitted and contract number, if any. ❑ Cite the U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles depicting study area. ❑ List the acreage included in the study. ❑ List keywords. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\ARMR Checklist.doc 0 4 5 III. Table of Contents (if text of report exceeds 90 pages [see page 31) ❑ List major report sections, subheadings, and appendices, with page numbers. ❑ Provide a list of maps with page numbers. ❑ List figures with page numbers. ❑ List tables with page numbers. IV. Management Summary/Abstract (page 3) ❑ Describe the purpose and scope of the archaeological investigation. ❑ List the date(s) of the investigation. ❑ Summarize the major findings of the investigation. ❑ If resources have been evaluated, summarize their significance/uniqueness. ❑ Discuss how the undertaking affects significant resources. ❑ Describe constraints on the investigation (e.g., time, finances, logistics). ❑ Offer a summary of recommendations. ❑ Describe the disposition of field notes, collections, and reports. V. Undertaking Information/Introduction (page 4 of ARMR Guidelines) ❑ Identify the contracting institution, numbers, etc. ❑ Explain why the study was conducted. ❑ Describe the undertaking (include maps). ❑ Include a schedule for the undertaking. ❑ Describe how personnel were organized and list participants (qualifications in appendix). VI. Setting (page 4) ❑ Natural Setting (physical region; biotic communities; geology, flora, fauna; current land use). ❑ Cultural Setting (include records and literature search results). P:\CAROLYN\Nisi Pres Com\ARMR Checklist.doc ` 4 6 VII. Research Design (page 6) ❑ Discuss the theoretical basis of the proposed research. ❑ Summarize previous research. ❑ Present testable hypotheses or state the research goals. ❑ Identify the test implications of the hypotheses or expected archaeological information. VIII. Methods (page 6) ❑ Present definitions for archaeological resource types. ❑ Describe the methods employed. ❑ Indicate where collected materials, photos, etc, are curated. IX. Report of Findings (page 8) Archaeological Resource Inventory Reports ❑ Present results (resources present or absent) ❑ Include site records and location maps in Confidential Appendices. Archaeological Excavation Reports ❑ Describe the physical context of the archaeological deposit. ❑ Describe archaeological features, artifacts, materials (ecofacts) . ❑ Describe the discovery, examination, and disposition of human remains. X. Discussion/Interpretation (page 12) ❑ Discuss results of the investigation as they relate to specific research design items. ❑ Discuss results of the study in terms of general research objectives. XI. Management Considerations (page 12) Inventory Reports ❑ Identify the management status of resources identified during the study. Describe the completeness of the study and likelihood of unidentified resources. 11 Outline the need for further management actions. PACAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\ARMR Checklist.doc 04 7 Evaluation Reports ❑ Discuss significance or uniqueness of each archaeological resource. ❑ Discuss the integrity of each archaeological resource. ❑ Assessing Effects Consider Alternatives/Proposed Management Actions ❑ Discuss possible measures to avoid/minimize impacts to resources. ❑ Discuss the preferred alternative and rationale behind the preference. ❑ Recommendations/Proposals XII. References (page 16) XIII. Appendices (Include sections listed below as appropriate, page 16). ❑ Personnel qualifications (provide briefs or resumes). ❑ Record search results. ❑ Repository agreements. ❑ Reviewers comments/agency correspondence. ❑ Artifact/Collection catalog. ❑ Artifact illustrations (if not in body of text). ❑ Photographs and photo records. ❑ Native American observer or monitor agreements. ❑ Maps (non -confidential) and undertaking plans, drawings, etc. ❑ Special studies/technical reports. XIV. Confidential Appendices (page 17) Historical and Archaeological Resource Location Maps. ❑ Native American sacred site location maps or descriptions. ❑ Resource Inventory Records for archaeological sites and historic structures. ❑ Heritage Nomination Forms. P:\CAROLYN\Hist Pres Com\ARMR Checklist.doc 043 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents And Format 049 California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format February 1990 Preface The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), under its state and federal mandates, has developed Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (ARMR Guidelines) for the preparation and review of archaeological reports. The purpose of this guidance is to improve the quality of public archaeology in California. The ARMR Guidelines were developed to aid archaeological report preparation and review by ensuring that all needed data would be included and organized to optimize efficiency and utility. "Needed data" refers to information usually required by regulatory or review agencies and by the Information Centers of the California Archaeological Inventory. The checklist included with this guidance was developed as an additional means of rapidly assessing archaeological report quality. It may be unnecessary to include all classes of information presented in this guidance in all reports. The content appropriate for any report should be determined by the type and sole of a project, by the nature and scheduling of cultural resources studies, and by the complexity of the resources and the information under consideration. Applicable federal or state laws and regulations, local ordinances and procedures may also determine appropriate report content. Certain federal and state agencies routinely produce abbreviated reports adequate for management decisions. Some of the information discussed in this guidance (e.g., setting, research design, methods description) is presented in agency handbooks, manuals, guidelines, or overviews. Reference to these sources may be substituted in reports for an extended discussion of this information when routine or repetitive undertakings are involved. Although these guidelines do not represent a state -mandated program, the OHP strongly urges anyone involved with public archaeology to read and use them. This guidance can be understood and effectively used by the professional archaeologist as well as by a broad spectrum of other professionals and decision- makers interested in ensuring that an investment in archaeology serves the public interest. Local governments in particular should adopt the guidelines as the standard according to which archaeological studies will be carried out, reported, and judged. This guidance, and further guidance to follow, are major elements of the preservation planning process carried out by the CHID in accordance with its mandates. A central goal of this process is to ensure that land use planning at all levels of government routinely and affirmatively takes into account the needs and the value of historic properties. We hope this guidance will be an effective contribution toward attainment of that goal. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 050 California Office of Historic Preservation For copies of the ARMR guidelines, or further information on CHIP programs and guidelines contact: California Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896, 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 94296-0001 (916) 653-6624 Acknowledgements The ARMR Guidelines is the product of many minds. Authored by Mr. Robert Jackson, the guidelines evolved from interim guidance developed by the author at the OHP. The guidelines also borrow from the Guidelines For Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Reports developed by Mr. Lester Ross and issued through the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. Dr. Hans Kreutzberg devoted substantial editorial and organizational attention to the ARMR Guidelines, rendering the document intelligible to a broad spectrum of potential users. Mr. 'Thad Van Bueren provided valuable and substantial input on the document. Thanks also go to Ms. Dorene Clement and Mr. Nicholas Del Cioppo, Mr. Jim Woodward, and Dr. Michael Moratto for their review and editorial comments. As a review agency, the OHP frequently offers critical comments that focus on problems of quality and consistency encountered in archaeological reports. While the ARMR Guidelines have been prepared to address such problems, it is important to acknowledge the many excellent archaeological reports that we have reviewed over the last several years. While too numerous for individual acknowledgement, the authors of these reports have provided models for specific topics presented in the ARMR Guidelines. To these authors we offer thanks and appreciation. The cover illustration was drafted by Thad Van Bueren for the 1984 report Archaeological Investigations in the Sacramento River Canyon, Volume I: Report of Testing at Seven Aboriginal Sites, by Infotec Development, Incorporated. The California Department of Transportation, for whom the report was prepared, graciously consented to our use of the illustration. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 051 California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format Table of Contents Preface 01 Acknowledgement 02 Table of Contents 03 I. Cover Letters 04 II. Title Page 05 III. Table of Contents 06 IV. Management Summary / Abstract 06 V. Undertaking Information / Introduction 07 VI. Setting 08 VII. Research Design 09 VIII. Methods 10 IX. Report of Findings 11 X. Discussion / Interpretation 15 XI. Management Considerations 15 XII. References 19 XIII. Appendices 19 XIV. Confidential Appendices 20 XV. Further Reading & guidance - Selected References 21 Checklist for Preparing and Reviewing Archaeological Resource Management Reports 26 ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 3 February 1990 052 California Office of Historic Preservation I. Cover Letters Adequate cover letters greatly facilitate review of ARM reports because they succinctly summarize the purpose and intent of the study. Cover letters are necessary for federal agency submissions to the Office of Historic Preservation or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Unlike management summaries or abstracts, which are often prepared by a consultant, cover letters reflect the agency's views and requests of the reviewing entity on such issues as archaeological resource significance and management. Regardless of origin, cover letters should at a minimum: A. Provide the undertaking's name, location, and any identifying number. B. State the agency name and where applicable, district, region, section or branch. C. Briefly describe the undertaking, including: 1. the type of undertaking (e.g., hydroelectric generating facility, highway widening, land exchange); 2. the acreage of the area encompassed by the undertaking, or its length and width in the case of linear projects; 3. the component parts of an undertaking and their land- and resource -disturbing potential; and 4. undertaking schedules or other factors that have affected, or that may affect, the conduct of archaeological resource studies. D. Identify the law, regulation or agreement under which the document was prepared. These could include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or local laws and regulations. The letter should also identify the point that compliance with applicable laws and regulations has reached. E. Describe the phase of investigation addressed by the document or the type of documents submitted (e.g., inventory/identification report, research design or report: on evaluation, treatment or management plan). Reference the specific type of investigation represented by the report. For instance, if the investigation is a survey, state also whether the survey was intensive, general, intuitive, etc. F. Describe the results of the investigation. If the document reports the results of survey/identification, include the number and types of properties identified (e.g., historic archaeological, prehistoric archaeological). In addition, the letter should: 1. identify (by name) properties within and outside an Area of Potential Effects (APE) (if survey exceeds APE boundaries); 2. identify properties that may and may not be affected by the undertaking; ARMR - Recommended February 1990 Page 4 053 California Office of Historic Preservation 3. note special circumstances (e.g., Native American or other public concerns, controversies, undertaking time constraints, political sensitivity). G. Indicate what action is being requested under the terms of applicable laws or regulations, and cite the specific section(s) of regulations to which the report is pertinent. Examples include requests for OHP consultation and concurrence in the adequacy of identification effort (36 CFR 800.4 [b]); requests for concurrence in National Register of Historic Places eligibility (36 CFR 800.4[c]); and requests for concurrence in determinations of effect (36 CFR 800.5). Include a description of further actions the: agency anticipates taking to comply with pertinent laws such as CEQA or the NHPA. If the document addresses previous review comments, it may be appropriate to attach review comments to the cover letter. H. Name the agency contact person most familiar with the undertaking and with archaeological resources studies who has authority to deal with issues raised during the course of review (e.g., agency cultural resource specialists who prepare the letters and reports). Include phone number. 11. Title Page The National Park Service has developed, and is encouraging the use of, a National Archaeological Data Base (NADB) comprising an annotated bibliography of archaeological resource management (ARM) reports. If used extensively and consistently, the NADB can be a valuable and efficient tool for managing ARM information. Consistent information and format in title pages will greatly facilitate computer entry of NADB data. A title page consistent with NADB standards, as outlined below, is appropriate for all reports. A. List the authors. Include name, address, and phone number of any consulting firm. B. Date the report by month and year. C. Present the report title. Indicate the type of investigation conducted, undertaking name, location including county and city or equivalent designation. D. Identify the entity submitting the report, such as the consulting firm, agency, or group that prepared and submitted the document. The submitter and the author may be identical. E. Identify the party to whom the document was submitted (e.g., contracting or responsible party such as an agency, developer, or a lead agency under CEQA). F. Reference the contract number/federal agency permit number. G. Cite the U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles depicting study area. H. List the acreage included in the study. 1. List keywords. NADB accommodates a large number of key words. Appropriate content for the title page depends on the type and complexity of the report. Key words can ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 5 February 1990 054 California Office of Historic Preservation include site numbers, county, type of undertaking, type of archaeological study, place names, important diagnostic artifact type, presence of human burials, evaluation, no resources found (if appropriate), Information Center file number (Information Centers should supply number), number of acres surveyed, quads, etc.). Archaeological site trinomials, township, and range but not section) are required in the key words section. there are a large number of sites reported, cite the report page(s) that list the site trinomials. III. Table of Contents (appropriate if text of report exceeds 10 pages) A. List major report sections, subheadings, and appendices, with page numbers B. Provide a list of maps with page numbers. C. List figures with page numbers. D. List tables with page numbers. IV. Management Summary/Abstract This section is appropriate in any type of ARM report. The Management Summary/Abstract should be a succinct (one to five pages) abstract of the scope and findings of the report. While much of the information described in this section is duplicated in a cover letter, cover letters often are either discarded after agency review or separated from archaeological reports in agency files. The Management Summary should be written so that non - archaeological professionals and the public, as well as professional archaeologists, can understand it. A. Describe the purpose and scope of the archaeological investigation. Specify the type of study that was conducted (e.g., literature search, inventory, evaluation, data recovery). B. List the date(s) of the investigation. C. Summarize the major findings of the investigation. For example, if the document reports an archaeological survey, list the number and types of resources identified during the survey. D. If resources have been evaluated, summarize their significance as determined pursuant to Appendix K of CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, the National Register of Historic Places criteria, or other standards as appropriate. E. Discuss how the undertaking affects significant resources. F. Describe constraints on the investigation (e.g., time, finances, logistics, vegetation, weather, landowner permission). G. Offer a summary of recommendations (e.g., evaluative test excavation, National Register eligibility recommendations, treatment recommendations). H. Describe the disposition of field notes, collections, and reports. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 Page 6 r55 California Office of Historic Preservation V. Undertaking Information/Introduction Undertaking means the land- or resource -disturbing activity for which an ARM study is prepared. The nature of an undertaking can determine the nature of the ARM study. Information about the undertaking is needed to determine how important archaeological resources may be affected. How much information is appropriate for a given report may depend on what was included in previous reports for the undertaking, and on the scope! and size of the undertaking. Some of the following topics may not be relevant to a given undertaking. A. Identify the contracting institution, contract number, permit number and expiration date. B. Explain why the study was undertaken, citing relevant Federal, State, and local laws. Mention any studies that preceded and recommended the present effort. C. Describe the undertaking, including the nature and extent of disturbance anticipated. If the undertaking consists of many features or facilities, identify and describe the nature and extent of its land- and resource -disturbing potential. Include: 1. an undertaking location map consisting of photocopies of relevant portions of appropriate USGS quadrangles clearly delineating the undertaking boundaries. Indicate the undertaking name, quad name, quad scale, township/range, and sections on each copy. 2. specific characteristics of the undertaking that influenced the nature of the ARM study. Include impact map(s) consisting of a photocopy of the undertaking location map (see above) that delineate areas of potential effects (APE), both direct and indirect. If appropriate, duplicate this map in Section XI, and include copies of planning maps, engineering drawings, architectural drawings, or artist's renderings that assist in defining the nature and extent of the undertaking. D. Include a schedule for the undertaking. Describe phases of planning and construction. E. Identify the geographical limits of the ARM study area in acres (e.g. the length and width of the survey area for linear undertakings). This area may or may not coincide with the undertaking area. F. Describe how personnel conducting the work were organized and list the active participants and their duties. Statements of qualifications are to be provided in an appendix. Identify the persons participating in the study such as Native American observers, monitors, and consultants, interested parties with special knowledge or expertise, and technical specialists. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 7 February 1990 California Office of Historic Preservation VI. Setting A description of the undertaking's setting includes a discussion of both the natural and cultural environments in which archaeological resources were created and used. The discussion of setting, whether physical or cultural, involves a review of existing data and literature. A. Natural Setting While appropriate for all archaeological investigations, descriptions of the area's physical environments should be scaled to the size (area) of the undertaking and the potential role of the environment in understanding archaeological resources that might be present. Archaeological resources can be important for reasons other than their research value, and an analysis of the natural setting may provide such reasons. 1. Identify the natural physiographic region and biotic communities found therein. 2. Describe the current natural environment of the general area including landforms, hydrology, geology, soils, climate, vegeta- tion, and animal life, as appropriate. The location of culturally important resources such as outcrops of cryptocrystalline, reser- voirs, townsites, etc., should also be discussed, as appropriate. 3. Describe the natural environment as it is believed to have existed during the temporal periods of occupations under inves- tigation, if such information is available. 4. Describe current land use (e.g., agriculture, mining, recre- ation, residential). 5. Assess the current condition of the land within the area of the undertaking (e.g., relatively unmodified, partially disturbed by construction or improvements). B. Cultural Setting 1. Provide an overview of the archaeology of the study area, with the level of detail scaled to the undertaking size and type. Existing overviews should be cited. Regardless of whether overviews exist, survey reports should include at least a brief summary of the prehistory of the study area, citing relevant information sources. As appropriate, include: a. a review of the ethnographic information relevant to the study area, scaled to undertaking size and type. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission as well as interviews with knowledgeable consultants may be necessary. b. a review of the history (which may or may not include ethnographic period information) of the study area, particularly when historic archaeological resources are or could be present. Again, the depth and extent of this review should be ARMR - Recommended Contents & Formal Page 8 February 1990 California Office of Historic Preservation scaled to the size and type of undertaking as well as the recognized patterns of historic land use. 2. For resource identification reports, evidence of a record search for known archaeological resources and previous ARM reports conducted at an Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory should be included. Either a copy of the record search report performed by Information Center staff or the results of a records search performed by a professional consultant should be provided in an appendix. 3. If other documentary research is conducted, provide the names and addresses of institutions and other sources consulted and include copies of correspondence. Refer to the types of documents examined and briefly outline the results. VII. Research Design Research designs are explicit statements of the theoretical and methodological approaches to be followed in an archaeological study. Research designs should be included in almost every type of archaeological report, and should vary in nature and level of detail with the undertaking and investigation type. In some cases, research designs have been developed for specific geographic regions, types of investigations, or types of resources. At a minimum, such research designs should be included into ARM reports by reference. In other reports, project -specific research design sections are necessary (e.g., evaluative and data recovery excavations). Research designs link theory, known information, research goals, and methods. The use of previously formulated research designs is acceptable if these designs are current and relate directly to the area and type of study under consideration. Predictive models are elements of a research design applicable to archaeological surveys. Predictive models are structured predictions concerning the types and locations of archaeological phenomena anticipated in an area. A. Discuss the theoretical basis of the proposed research. Cite or discuss the research paradigms under which the investigators are operating. B. Summarize previous research. A summary of important research questions pertinent to the study area or to identified resources should be presented, with particular emphasis on the identification of relevant data gaps. Statements appealing to generally recognized goals of archaeology or anthropology by themselves usually lack the detail necessary for an adequate research design. C. Present testable hypotheses or state the goals of the research. Any useful theoretical approach should be capable of generating testable hypotheses. A research design should present important research questions recognized for the region and relevant to the study, based on previous research. D. Identify the test implications of the hypotheses. 1. Describe expected archaeological resource types, archaeological patterns, and data categories anticipated, as they relate to test implications. Discuss operational ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 G58 California Office of Historic Preservation definitions for archaeological resource types (and rationales for their use), if different from CHIP definitions of archaeological sites, historic resources, and isolated artifacts or resources. Vill. Methods Methods of investigation must always be included in an ARM report. The length and detail of this presentation should be scaled to the type and scope of the investigation. Discuss methodological considerations (as distinguished from methods) relevant to the resource types present or anticipated in the study area. Discuss the kinds of methods appropriate to achieving the objectives of the study. Conversely, identify constraints and difficulties that hinder(ed) realization of these goals. A. If not offered previously, present definitions (and rationales for their use) of archaeological resource types. This is necessary when the definitions used for archaeological sites, historic resources, and isolated artifacts differ from those contained in the California Archaeological Inventory Handbook for Completing An Archaeological Site Record, distributed by the California OHP. B. Describe the data gathering methods employed (e.g., remote sensing data; surface survey; surface chemical analysis; sub -surface methods such as probing road and stream cuts or analyzing core probes). The methods description should provide details such as maps of survey transects, deployment of survey personnel, site recordation techniques, chemical analyses, subsurface test locations and methods, and remote sensing techniques. 1. Describe specific research and sampling strategies employed, the rationale for their use, a description of how they were implemented, and how many person-hours/days were expended, if such information is available. If methods follow agency or professional standards, define or at least cite the source for the definition of the method (e.g. intensive, general, intuitive, cursory surveys). 2. Using U.S.G.S quadrangles, show area(s) subject to investigation in relation to the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and project boundaries. For survey reports, depict areas surveyed, not surveyed, or surveyed using various strategies. Larger scale maps may also be appropriate to convey information regarding the nature of the investigation. Such maps can be included in an appendix (see section IX.A.2.b.). 3. Provide a descriptive summary of the areas examined, noting undertaking areas that were not inspected in relationship to the sampling strategies employed, and why. Note the percentage of ground visibility for the areas inspected. 4. Describe site recording procedures as appropriate. 5. Describe the types and methods of excavation. Number each excavation location on a map of the site sufficiently detailed to depict the relationship between natural and archaeological features within the site. 6. Describe cultural materials collected (if any), including methods of documentation and removal. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 059 Page 10 California Office of Historic Preservation 7. Describe measures undertaken or needed to restore archaeologically disturbed site areas when archaeological field studies are completed. C. Indicate where collected materials, photographs, and other documents are curated.. Curatorial agreements and reburial agreements should be provided in an appendix. 1. When photos or other documentation (e.g., remote sensing data) are not included in the report, name the repository where these data are stored. Provide appropriate reference numbers used to file and retrieve this data at the repository. 2. Discuss problems or constraints in conducting the research. IX. Report of Findings This section presents the information collected during the study. Thorough description of collected data is essential for the construction of meaningful and well -supported interpretations. When interpretations of data are mixed with or substituted for basic data presentations, the reader is left with no basis for independently assessing conclusions and inferences. It is therefore critical to explicitly separate data presentation from interpretation of those results whenever possible. Specific descriptive requirements for particular types of ARM studies are outlined below. A. Archaeological Resource Inventory Reports 1. If no archaeological resources were located, their absence should be explicitly noted. 2. If resources were previously reported or anticipated but were not located, discuss the possible environmental and cultural factors that may have hidden or destroyed the resources. 3. Archaeological resources identified. a. Provide information regarding the archaeological resources that were observed and recorded, including: i. prehistoric archaeological sites (i.e., primarily surface and subsurface properties); ii. historic archaeological sites; iii. isolated artifacts. b. Recent or contemporary resources (e.g., modern roads, power lines, structures) noted but not formally recorded might also be discussed and included on a map, although such information may not be appropriate or necessary, and is usually not confidential. c. The following maps should generally be included in a report on the results of inventory. Maps depicting archaeological site locations should not be included in reports that will be publicly circulated. The following types of maps might be placed in a separate appendix: ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 Page 11 060 California Office of Historic Preservation if not already presented (see section VIII.B.2.) area(s) subject to investigation in relation to the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and project boundaries on appropriate U.S.G.S. quadrangles (7.5 or 15 minute series). For survey reports, depict areas surveyed, not surveyed, or surveyed using various strategies. Larger scale maps may also be appropriate to convey information regarding the nature of the investigation. U.S.G.S quadrangle maps showing archaeological resource locations recorded during survey. archaeological resource sketch maps (if the report involves survey) consistent in content and quality with the standards established in the California Archaeological Inventory Handbook for Completing an Archaeological Site Record distributed by the California CHIP. If archaeological site records are provided in a detachable appendix to the report, sketch maps may be included with the site records. iv. archaeological site contour maps depicting topographic and archaeological details, and surface and subsurface study locations should be provided, if available, although such maps often are not prepared for inventory reports. d. Describe archaeological resources. Provide a description of each resource listed under "Archaeological Resources Observed." For each archaeological resource, complete a California Archaeological Inventory form (DPR 422A), using the California Archeological Inventory, Handbook For Completing An Archeological Site Record available from the CHIP. Insert forms in a confidential Archaeological Resources appendix. Prior to completing the report, submit two copies of each form to the appropriate Information Center of the California Archeological Inventory, requesting state trinomial numbers for each recorded site. ii. If isolated prehistoric resources are recorded, complete one copy of the California Archaeological Isolated Artifact form (DPR 422H) and insert in a confidential Isolated Resources appendix. The OHP encourages the recording of isolated artifacts. iii. Provide a master map (photocopy of appropriate USGS quadrangle) depicting the locations of all archaeological resources. It may not be appropriate to include maps of archaeological resource locations in the body of the report if the report is available to the general public. Archaeological resource locations should appear only in confidential appendices (see Section IX.A.3.c.). B. Archaeological Excavation Reports Excavation can occur during any phase of archaeological investigation, including inventory. The description of excavation during these various phases should be sealed to the size of the excavation, the importance of the information to the objectives of the study, and the abundance and quality of information resulting from the excavation. In ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 12 February 1990 California Office of Historic Preservation terms of data presentation, no distinction is made here between excavation conducted for evaluative purposes and excavation performed as a data recovery or mitigation phase. Data and interpretation should be presented separately when possible. Summarize the results of lengthy, appended special studies. 1. Describe the physical context of the archaeological deposit, including: a. site topography and geomorphology (if not addressed in Setting) b. soil type, structure, chemistry, stratigraphy and their relationship to surrounding soils. Summarize results of special studies such as particle size analysis and soil chemistry, and include a copy of special studies reports in an appendix. i. non -cultural soil constituents (floral, faunal). Include a summary of special studies and insert reports in an appendix; ii. anthropic soils and stratigraphic relationships. c. profiles of excavation units, trenches, or auger borings, as appropriate, 2. Describe archaeological features. Functional ascriptions/interpretations, such as hearth, oven, housepit, may be unavoidable at this level of data presentation. It may be appropriate to discuss the relationship between feature and non -feature archaeological material distributions (e.g., the relationship between midden deposits and ovens or housepits). a. Describe physical evidence including location, dimensions, attributes, and associations. b. Provide or reference illustrations and photographs of features. c. Either present in full or summarize the results of special studies related to features (e.g., radiocarbon, flotation, micro -constituent analysis, chemical analysis). 3. Enumerate and describe artifacts by material type and artifact class (e.g., flaked - stone). Avoid typological ascriptions that impose or imply function or chronological association in the initial description. For example, biface, uniface, or modified flake is preferable to knife, scraper, or used flake. Such interpretations can follow in a separate subsection, as described below. a. Discuss typological consideration of artifacts such as stone tools, beads, bone and groundstone tools, and historic materials. b. Include illustrations/photographs of formal artifacts. These can be included in an appendix. c. Present the results of analyses of artifact manufacture and use (e.g., flaked - stone manufacturing technology, use -wear studies, pottery analysis, basketry identification). Extensive and detailed analyses may be included in appendices. A summary of the results of these studies should be presented in the body of the ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 Page 13 062 California Office of Historic Preservation report. Such studies should define analytic methods and distinguishing traits of analytic categories. For example, if a flaked -stone analysis involved the identification of different types of flakes, then the attributes that define such flake types should be reported. References to previous analyses should not supplant basic descriptions of methods and analytic categories. d. Present the results of analyses such as radiocarbon dating, obsidian source: and hydration studies, thermoluminescence dating, geomagnetic studies, pollen analysis, blood protein analysis, and others. 4. Describe non-artifactual archaeological material that reflects past human activities (e.g., burned seeds, charred animal bone), and materials that provide information on past environments or exploited resources (e.g., pollen). a. Include identification studies for floral and faunal remains, with interpretations regarding the kinds and amounts of resources used, consumed, etc. b. Present the results of physical analyses such as pollen, microconstituent analysis (flotation, coprolite studies). 5. Describe the context of discovery, examination, and disposition of human remains, if any. Given the often sensitive nature of human remains, examination and treatment of such remains will depend on the outcome of consultation with appropriate Native American representatives and the decisions of land owners regarding the disposition of human remains. Therefore, whether and how human remains and associated grave goods are examined may vary greatly. Similarly, the nature and extent of reporting on the treatment of human remains may vary with the nature of Native American concerns. It may not be possible or appropriate to maintain rigid reporting standards. In general however, the following information is desirable from an archaeological and management standpoint. a. Describe the context of the discovery of human remains. For example, describe if a human burial discovered during excavation was expected, based on consultant information or archaeological indicators. b. Describe measures taken pursuant to state law, local ordinance, agreement, and/or agency policy regarding human remains. c. Describe efforts to consult with the Native American Heritage Commission, appropriate Native American representatives or living descendants, county coroner, landowners, etc. d. Describe outcome of discussions regarding disposition of human remains. e. Describe actions taken with regard to the study of human remains, i.e., exposure, exhumation, analysis, reburial in -situ, reburial after exhumation. i. Describe the location, physical position, orientation, and nature of the remains (e.g., primary inhumation, cremation). Include a description of grave associations and the physical/contextual relationships between human remains and associated artifacts. For example, describe if artifacts were ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 14 February 1990 C6 California Office of Historic Preservation overlying or underlying the human remains in a patterned arrangement, or were found within burial pit fill. ii. Report the results of analyses, including specialists' reports in an appendix. Description of the remains and reporting the results of any analyses may occur under the reporting of archaeological features (Section IX.B.1.g.). iii. Include photographs and illustrations. iv. Record/report the reburial location on a New Deposit/Redeposit Record (DPR 4221). Such information should be included in a confidential appendix and treated in a manner sensitive to the desires of the most likely descendants of the human remains. 6. Describe the spatial distribution and patterning of cultural material by class (e.g., flaked - stone, bone). Present data on the intrasite distribution of cultural materials, i.e., vertical and horizontal stratigraphy, assisted by data tables. X. Discussion/interpretation Descriptive data presented above should be discussed and interpreted with explicit reference to the research design or study objectives defined earlier in the report. In addition, unanticipated data recovered during the study may warrant discussion of additional research topics not included in the research design. A. Discuss results of the investigation as they relate to specific topics and questions presented in research design. Preferably, organize the discussion according to the: structure of the research questions, hypotheses, and test implications presented in the research design. B. Discuss the results of the study in terms of the general research objectives of the study (e.g., settlement patterns, subsistence, change through time). This discussion should place the investigation in a regional context, noting its role or contribution to an understanding of local, regional, state, or national history or prehistory. XI. Management Considerations The discussion of management topics should address the management goals of the study in a manner that is consistent with the specific regulatory process relevant to the ARM study. For example, an inventory report should discuss how complete the study was, the likelihood that additional resources are present in an undertaking APE, and measures that would be necessary to identify such resources. Unfortunately, terminology for similar procedures varies among local, state and federal guidelines or regulations. For example, an archaeological site might considered National Register eligible under the Section 106 process and significant under the Appendix K Guidelines for CEQA. The terms used in an ARM report should be consistent with the terms defined in the relevant guidelines or regulations. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Formal Page 15 February 1990 064 California Office of Historic Preservation A. Inventory Reports 1. Identify the management status of resources identified during the study. For example, list archaeological properties that have been determined National Register eligible, important, unimportant, and those that have not been evaluated. If previously recorded and/or evaluated archaeological resources were identified, provide a list of these resources. 2. Describe the completeness of the study and the likelihood that additional, unidentified resources may be present. 3. Outline needs for further management action, such as additional field survey, evaluation of resources, or no further study. B. Evaluation Reports Resource evaluation is the cornerstone of the current ARM environment. The outcome of evaluation determines which resources will and will not be protected or considered further. Thoughtful evaluation also establishes the importance of archaeological resources and influences the type of consideration they are afforded. Provide a detailed discussion addressing the significance or uniqueness of each archaeological resource using the criteria for evaluation employed in CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, Appendix K or 36 CFR 60.4, as appropriate. Critically consider the full complement of potential reasons (criteria) why a property might be considered important, not simply the most obvious or prominent. a. Consider the role of setting as a contributor to the importance of the resource. Archaeological resources can be eligible for the NRHP under 36 CFR 60.4(.a) for their association with events that have contributed to the broad patterns of (history or prehistory, under 36 CFR 60.4(c) because they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the: work of a master, or possess high artistic value. Under these criteria, setting may contribute substantially to the importance of the resource. Describe the integrity of each archaeological resource including an estimate of the percentage of the resource that is disturbed or remains. A consideration of integrity should relate to the reasons a resource is determined important. Thus, the environmental setting or surface of an archaeological site can be completely destroyed or disturbed yet the site may retain integrity if it is important only for the information its subsurface component contains. c. Identify the characteristics and areas of a resource that do and do not contribute to its importance. If the resource is a National Register district, identify the contributing and non-contributing properties within the district and describe the nature of their contribution, to the extent known. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 C 6 5 Page 16 California Office of Historic Preservation i. Present clear evidence that information from the resources can address or contribute to the resolution of important, specific research questions outlined in the research design. ii. Summarize or reference, as appropriate, the evidence that indicates the resource contains in appropriate contexts and in sufficient quantity and quality, the material needed to meet the data requirements of the stated hypotheses or research questions documented in Sections IX and X above. iii. Evaluate each resource in terms of its overall potential to address important questions or fill data gaps. Compare the resource to others in its local or regional context to determine how much it can help to achieve stated research goals. C. Assess Effects. Determining the nature of an undertaking's effects on an archaeological site depends on knowing what makes an archaeological resource important, and what specific ground disturbances or other physical changes are proposed. For example, two projects may both involve grading. In one case, grading will disturb an archaeological resource important because of the information that it contains. In the other case, grading will disturb an archaeological resource important because it visibly represents a particular human adaptation to specific environmental challenges. In the first case, the assessment of effects might conclude that the information can be acceptably recovered through archaeological excavation. In the second case, there is no way to preserve the association between the site and its surroundings if grading occurs, and the effect of the grading might be considered adverse. The difference in the effect determination is due to the different reasons the archaeological sites were determined important. The focus of an ARM report (inventory, evaluation, etc.) and what phase of the undertaking is involved will largely determine whether or not an assessment of effects can be included in the report. Lack of project design information or unevaluated resources are just two of many factors that could preclude an assessment of effects. 1. Discuss or reference a previous discussion of the general undertaking (see Section V-D). Discuss the likely effects the undertaking may have on each important archaeological resource. Use appropriate regulatory language and reference the local, state, or federal regulations or guidelines under which the effects of the undertaking are determined. Explain each determination. a. Discuss anticipated direct and indirect impacts to archaeological resources. Direct impacts include destruction, alteration, and isolation of the property of its setting, when setting is a characteristic contributing to the importance of the: resource. While 36 CFR Part 800 does not distinguish between direct and indirect effects, anticipated indirect impacts of an undertaking should be presented. Indirect impacts could include growth inducement, increased public use, erosion of resources outside the undertaking area. It is also appropriate to discuss beneficial effects in addition to adverse effects. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 066 Page 17 California Office of Historic Preservation 2. For reports involving multiple resources, include a table listing all resources. Provide your opinion on the importance of each resource and identify the effect of the undertaking on each (e.g., no effect, effect, no adverse effect, adverse effect). D. Consider Alternatives and Propose Management Actions 1. For each significant or unique resource that may be affected, discuss a range of possible measures to avoid or minimize an adverse effect. Examples include: a. relocation or redesign of the undertaking; b. preservation measures (e.g., site burial, erosion slope stabilization, vegetation cover, signing, public access restrictions, site monitoring); c. data recovery for portions of selected resources; and d. no undertaking. 2. Discuss the preferred alternative offering a rationale for this preference. This discussion may address the merits of the undertaking, the mission and needs of the agency, etc. E. Recommendations/Proposals Recommendations and proposals for further action can take a wide variety of forms depending on the nature of the ARM study and the undertaking. 1. Inventory Reports a. Inventory complete. Inventory reports may conclude that efforts to locate archaeological resources have been sufficient. The inventory may lead to one of the following conclusions and recommendations: No resources were identified. The proposed undertaking does not involve or affect archaeological resources. ii. Resources are present. Depending on the type of resources involved and the type of undertaking proposed, one of the following recommendations Tray be appropriate: • Only unimportant resources are present. No further consideration is necessary. • Archaeological resources are present but because of preventive measures, will not be affected by the undertaking. • Archaeological resources are present. Evaluation of these resources is necessary. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 7 Page 18 California Office of Historic Preservation Sufficient information exists to evaluate resources. Offer recommendations regarding the importance of the resources. Often this is not possible for archaeological deposits on the basis on surface inspection alone. b. Inventory incomplete. An initial effort to locate archaeological resources may reveal that a different level of effort or additional inventory work is necessary. This section should identify the constraints, limitations, or rationale behind the recommendation for additional work and offer specific recommendations for additional inventory. 2. Evaluation Reports a. Evaluation results are summarized and conclusions or recommendations regarding the importance of archaeological resources are presented. When necessary, insert the following sorts of items in a confidential appendix: i. State Historical Landmarks nominations. ii. National Register of Historic Places nominations. Ill. National Register eligibility opinions. iv. Opinions on the importance of the resources under CEQA. b. Provide conclusions regarding the effect of the undertaking on important archaeological resources (e.g., no effect, no adverse effect, adverse effect). Recommend further studies or actions such as mitigation or other treatment for identified effects. 3. Treatment Reports a. After mitigation, such as data recovery, has been completed, state whether the resource retains significance and propose additional measures needed to protect the resource or to recover additional significant information. b. Discuss how effectively the treatment program met expectations. XII. References (Use of American Antiquity format Is encouraged). XIII. Appendices Depending on the type and purpose of the archaeological report, some of the following information may or may not be appropriate. In addition, investigators preparing archaeological reports for publication or wide distribution in addition to regulatory review, may wish to exclude some of the administrative information from the body of the report and instead include such information as a detached appendices or attachments. A. Personnel qualification statements, briefs, or resumes. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 19 February 1990 068 California Office of Historic Preservation B. Record search results. 1. Provide a copy of the Information Center record search, if conducted by Information Center staff. 2. If a records search is conducted at an Information Center by a qualified consultant, provide a copy of a receipt or evidence of such a search as well as a report of the results of that search, if not already included in the report. Archaeological site locations must not be disclosed in documents accessible to the general public. Confidential appendices that report site locations should contain statements requesting that their distribution be carefully controlled (see Section XIV). C. Repository agreements. D. Reviewer comments/agency correspondence. E. Artifact/Collection catalog. F. Artifact illustrations (if not in body of text). G. Photographs and photo records. H. Native American observer or monitor agreements. I. Maps (non -confidential) and undertaking plans, drawings, etc. J. Special studies/technical reports. XIV. Confidential Appendices Archaeological and sensitive Native American site locations and maps should not be included in copies of reports for general distribution. Archaeological site locations are exempted from the California Freedom of Information Act, as specified in Government Code 6254.10. However, review and regulatory agencies often need such information for management purposes. The placement of such information in a Confidential Appendix fulfills that need. A. General Historical and Archaeological Resource Location Map (depicting locations of all properties within a study area). B. Resource Inventory Records. 1. Historic Resources Inventory forms and maps (consistent with DPR 523). 2. Archaeological Site Record forms and maps (consistent with DPR 422). 3. Isolated Artifact forms and maps. C. Native American sacred site location maps or descriptions, if regarded as sensitive. If not obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), disclosure of such ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 20 February 1990 r'69 California Office of Historic Preservation information should occur only after coordinating with the NAHC and with appropriate groups and individuals recommended by the NAHC. D. Heritage Nomination Forms. 1. National Register of Historic Places forms. 2. National Historic Landmark forms. 3. Registered State Historical Landmark forms. 4. State Point of Historical Interest forms. XV. Further Reading and Guidance - Selected References The following references are recommended for further information and guidance. Copies of many of these references, or information on their availability, can be obtained from the California Office of Historic Preservation, P.O. Box 942896, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 94296-0001, (916) 445-8006. ARMR - Recommended Contents February 1990 Page 070 California Office of Historic Preservation Laws and Regulations National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Public Law 89-665; STAT. 915; U.S.C. 470, as amended by Public Law 91-243, Public Law 94-458, Public Law 96-199, Public Law 96-244, and Public Law 96-515. Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800). Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 169. September 1986. National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Part 60). National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR Parts 60 and 63). Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 150. August 5, 1986. Curation of Federally -Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 CFR 79). Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 167. August 28, 1987. Uniform Rules and Regulations: Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (43 CFR Part 7). Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 4. January 6, 1984. CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Office of Planning and Research, Office of Permit Assistance, Sacramento, California, 1986. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5. California Public Resources Code, Section 5097. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format _ Page 22 February 1990 California Office of Historic Preservation Department of the Interior Guidance Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 29, 1983. Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 31. February 17, 1988. The Section 110 Guidelines: Annotated Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Jointly issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1989. The Curation and Management of Archeological Collections: A Pilot Study. Alexander J. Lindsay, et al. Cultural Resources Management Series. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. September 1980. Archeological Survey: Methods and Uses. Thomas F. King. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1978. Using UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1980. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. (Bulletin 15). National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1982. National Register Bulletin Series. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling; Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1987. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 23 February 1990 ; .80,6.j % v 0 1 2 California Office of Historic Preservation Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Guidance Section 106, Step -by -Step. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1986 Treatment of Archeological Properties: A Handbook. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C. 1981. Fact Sheet: A Five -Minute Look at Section 106 Review. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Fact Sheet: Programmatic Agreements under Section 106. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Applicants for and Recipients of Federal Assistance, Permits, and Licenses. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Indian Tribes and Other Native Americans. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Local Governments. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Identification of Historic Properties: A Decisionmaking Guide for Managers. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1988. Public Participation in Section 106 Review: A Guide for Agency Officials. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1989. Preparing Agreement Documents. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 1989. Federal Historic Preservation Case Law -- A Special Report. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Recommended Outline: Ideal Data Recovery Plan. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Where to Look: A Guide to Preservation Information. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C. 1983. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 24 February 1990 M.....: G 73 California Office of Historic Preservation Miscellaneous Guidance and Readings Appendix K, Archaeological Impacts. In CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Office of Planning and Research, Office of Permit Assistance, Sacramento, California, 1986. Scholars as Contractors. William J. Mayer -Oakes and Alice W. Portnoy, editors. Cultural Resource Management Studies. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1979. Scholars as Managers, or How the Managers Can Do It Better. Alice W. Portnoy, editor. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1979. Guidelines for Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Reports. San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino, California. Califomia Archaeological Inventory Handbook for Completing An Archaeological Site Record. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. 1989. California Archaeological Site Inventory Information Center Procedural Manual. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California, 1988. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format Page 25 February 1990 n C, 74 California Office of Historic Preservation Checklist for Preparing and Reviewing Archaeological Resource Management Reports Name of Undertaking: Name of Report: Reviewer/Agency: Date: I. Cover Letters (see page 1 of ARMR Guidelines) A. Provide the undertaking's name and location, and any identifying number. B. State agency name and where applicable, district, region, section, or branch. C. Briefly describe the undertaking (type, acreage, components, scheduling). D. Describe the point that compliance with historic preservation law has reached. E. Describe the phase and/or type of investigation addressed by the document. F. Describe the results of the investigation. G. Indicate what compliance action is being requested under applicable laws. H. Name agency contact person administering, or most familiar with the undertaking and study. II. Title Page (page 2) A. List the authors and consulting firm. B. Date the report by month and year. C. Present the report title. D. Identify the entity (e.g., agency, local government) submitting the report. E. Identify the parry to whom the document was submitted and contract number, if any. F. Reference the contract number/federal agency permit number. G. Cite the U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles depicting study area. H. List the acreage included in the study. I. List keywords. III. Table of Contents (if text of report exceeds 10 pages [see page 3]) A. List major report sections, subheadings, and appendices, with page numbers. B. Provide a list of maps with page numbers. C. List figures with page numbers. D. List tables with page numbers. IV. Management Summary/Abstract (page 3) A. Describe the purpose and scope of the archaeological investigation. B. List the date(s) of the investigation. C. Summarize the major findings of the investigation. D. If resources have been evaluated, summarize their significance/uniqueness. E. Discuss how the undertaking affects significant resources. F. Describe constraints on the investigation (e.g., time, finances, logistics). G. Offer a summary of recommendations. H. Describe the disposition of field notes, collections, and reports. ARMR - Recommended Contents February 1990 ��., . Cr 7 Page 26 California Office of Historic Preservation V. Undertaking Information/Introduction (page 4 of ARMR Guidelines) A. Identify the contracting institution, contract and permit numbers, etc. B. Explain why the study was conducted. C. Describe the undertaking (include maps). D. Include a schedule for the undertaking. E. Identify the geographical limits of ARM study area. F. Describe how personnel were organized and list participants (qualifications in appendix). VI. Setting (page 4) A. Natural Setting (e.g., landforms, geology, soils, flora, fauna; current land use). B. Cultural Setting (include records and literature search results). VII. Research Design (page 6) A. Discuss the theoretical basis of the proposed research. B. Summarize previous research. C. Present testable hypotheses or state the research goals. D. Identify the test implications of the hypotheses or expected archaeological information. Vill. Methods (page 6) A. Present definitions for archaeological resource types. B. Describe the methods employed and map the areas investigated. C. Indicate where collected materials, photos, etc., are curated. IX. Report of Findings (page 8) A. Archaeological Resource Inventory Reports 1. Present results (list resources present or absent). 2. Include site records and location maps in confidential appendices. B. Archaeological Excavation Reports 1. Describe the physical context of the archaeological deposit. 2. Describe archaeological features, artifacts, materials (ecofacts). 3. Describe the discovery, examination, and disposition of human remains. X. Discussion/Interpretation (page 12) A. Discuss results of the investigation as they relate to specific research design items. B. Discuss results of the study in terms of general research objectives. XI. Management Considerations (page 12) A. Inventory Reports 1. Identify the management status of resources identified during the study. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format February 1990 Page 27 California Office of Historic Preservation 2. Describe the completeness of the study and likelihood of unidentified resources. 3. Outline the need for further management actions. Evaluation Reports 1. Discuss significance or uniqueness of each archaeological resource. 2. Discuss the integrity of each archaeological resource. C. Assess Effects C. Consider Alternatives/Proposed Management Actions 1. Discuss possible measures to avoid/minimize impacts to resources. 2. Discuss the preferred alternative and rationale behind the preference. E. Recommendations/Proposals XII. References (page 16) XIII. Appendices (Include sections listed below as appropriate, page 16). A. Personnel qualifications (provide briefs or resumes) B. Record search results. C. Repository agreements. D. Reviewers comments/agency correspondence. E. Artifact/Collection catalog. F. Artifact illustrations (if not in body of text). G. Photographs and photo records. H. Native American observer or monitor agreements. I. Maps (non -confidential) and undertaking plans, drawings, etc. J. Special studies/technical reports. XIV. Confidential Appendices (page 17) A. Historical and Archaeological Resource Location Maps B. Resource Inventory Records for archaeological sites and historic structures. C. Native American sacred site location maps or descriptions. D. Heritage Nomination forms. This publication was partially financed with federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. The California Office of Historic Preservation receives federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally Assisted Programs on the basis of Contents & Format February 1990 Page 28 ' 0 7 7 California Office of Historic Preservation race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013- 7127. ARMR - Recommended Contents & Format - Pac pg February 1990 078 THINGS TO CONSIDER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL...... AND SOME DO'S AND DON'T'S Leslie Mouriquand City of Coachella October 4, 2002 1. If yourjurisdiction doesn't have a Historic Preservation & Cultural Resources Ordinance.... write one and get it adopted! SHPO can refer you to some good models. Take a look at the one from the City of La Quinta. 2. If you have one, see how current it is and, if need be, update it. Look at it every time you update your General Plan to see if it needs to be updated, too! 3. Draft a Preservation & Cultural Resources Plan starting with the policies and objectives of your General Plan, include implementation measures. Follow the state model. Consider including the Plan in a Cultural Resources Element for your General Plan as allowed by the PZDL. 4. Keep track of the cultural resources surveys within your jurisdiction by mapping areas surveyed, add to GIS as a data layer. A survey should be repeated if it is older than 5 years, or was not a thorough and appropriate type of survey. 5. Plot recorded sites on a CONFIDENTIAL GIS data layer. REMEMBER THAT SITE LOCATIONS ARE NOT FOR PUBLIC VIEW! Release this data cautiously on a "need to know" basis only ...... this does not include local history buffs, the media, your relatives, or other staff not directly involved in the project. 6. Make copies of the cultural resources reports submitted and keep them together as a library research - planning resource. Make reports available to "qualified" researchers with verified qualifications. 7. Draft a curation guideline for your jurisdiction. Keep the resources local and together. Don't store them in a box under the City Manager's desk! And don't let the department secretary use them for table decorations or paper weights! Do use them in culturally -sensitive educational exhibits, etc. 8. Draft a professional qualification criteria for your jurisdiction - use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Professional Qualifications. Check people out..sometimes they are not qualified. 9. Have someone check the daily DigAlert (underground service alert) requests to see if any trenching, etc will be adjacent to or within a recorded cultural 079 site. You will have only a short time to comment and arrange for monitoring, etc, so have someone stay on top of this! 10. Condition projects to require cultural resources monitoring for off -site earth disturbing activities related to a project. Adopt the federal idea of "Area of Potential Effects" (APE).... think outside of the project boundaries for indirect and off -site impacts. The nexus is there ... use it to the advantage of resource management. 11. Condition projects to have cultural resources monitoring for any grubbing, clearing, trenching as well as mass grading activities. Mass grading isn't the only "earth -moving" activity that can destroy a site. Even temporary parking lots on vacant parcels for events should be surveyed for resources! 12. Know that parcels with a history of agricultural activities DO NOT preclude there being cultural resources still there! We are finding resources (some of them very significant!) within parcels that have been farmed for many years. 13. Know that it sometimes takes a Phase II investigation to determine significance of a resource, in order to answer the CEQA Initial Study questions. You can't finish your checklist without the significance determination and knowing what mitigation is needed. It is also good project "insurance" against litigation if you do CEQA correctly and completely! 14. Never, ever condition for a Phase I or II cultural resources investigation to be done at a later date, after entitlements are approved!!!!! You must have the information (presence or absence of resources, their location, nature, significance, and appropriate mitigation measures) to complete the CEQA checklist! 15. Require cultural resources reports to follow the ARMR report style. This makes it easier to review a report and know if it is complete and appropriate for what you need. Consider adoption of the format as a formal SOP or even as part of your HP-CR ordinance to make the policy stick. Never accept a report that doesn't follow the format. If you would like a copy of ARMR, let me know and I'll give you one. 16. Always read the reports and if you don't understand something.... ask someone who does understand them. This is where a "partnership" with someone experienced can be very helpful. 17. If you are located within Riverside, Inyo, or Mono counties, include the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on your project transmittal list for agency review and comment. They are housed at UCR and their number is (909) 787- 5745. Imperial Valley has its' own information center. .... _ 080 18. Use the EIC's response to "hang your hat" on for requiring cultural resources surveys for projects. Although your General Plan should have enough information in it and/or a policy statement for you to be able to use that. 19. It is unethical to recommend a particular ai-cnaeologiot, etc., to a project: applicant —give them a copy of the A!C consultant's list and advise them to get estimates from more than one consultant, and advise them to make sure the one they pick has adequate experience within your area. 20. Know that not every archaeologist is also a historian or a paleontologist - and vice versa - get the right people for the right job! 21. Remember to ask if your projects have any federal funding or environmental review requirements that would trigger NEPA and Section 106, 110, or 101 review? Then do the appropriate environmental review. A lot of grant funded projects require NEPA review. 22. Consider applying for Certified Local Government (CLG) certification for your jurisdiction. There are some very good benefits available. Look at the SHPCI website for some good info. 23. Consider using the Mills Act tax credit program to encourage historic: preservation of privately owned historic properties. 24. Don'tforget that paleontological resources are included as cultural resources in CEClA. They need to be addressed in your Initial Studies. 25. Consider participating in the annual State Archaeology Week by sponsoring an event or activity to draw awareness to the resources within your jurisdiction. See the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) website for information about this. 26. Arrange for some in-house cultural resources awareness training for both staff and decision -makers. 27. Take your staff and decision -makers out on field trips to visit excavations and other activities on project sites when the opportunities permit. They love it and it raises their awareness of the resources. Have the project archaeologist give a short talk on what is going on and show them around . Arrange this with the archaeologist first, before you take them out ... there are safety and confidentiality issues to consider when bringing people into the field. 11 081 28. Make sure all cultural resources investigations include a check for sacred sites with the Native American Heritage Commission. Their number is (916) 653-4040. You can do it by faxing a request, along with that portion of the quad map with project boundaries identified, to them and they will fax back a response... normally within 10 days. Include this in your Initial Study EA doCllmentation. 29. Make sure all cultural resources investigations include a records check for homestead, desert entry, and other types of land granting historyon a project site, especially in the desert regions. This is part of the historic settlement pattern and should be documented. BLM offices usually have this on microfiche. 30. Remember that not all archaeological sites are located neatly within or outside of jurisdictional or parcel boundaries... these boundaries didn't exist in prehistoric times! You may have to coordinate with another jurisdiction for some resources. 31. Even cultural resources within the public right-of-way are protected and need to be considered. This is where you have to be diligent in gaining the cooperation of utility providers and their contractors. 32. Most important ....... include the local First Nations tribes on your project transmittal routing list. Follow up with them to see if they have any comments... make a polite phone call to their cultural resources person and ask or go visit them at their office. Invite their comments.... do not demand comments. There may be information thattheywill notsharewith you. Accept it. Remember... You are dealing with another culture with perhaps a different perspective than yours. Be respectful and listen, as you are usually dealing with cultural resources thatare partof their heritage! They are interested, they do care. Often times there are issues of spirituality, sacredness, and power that they are bound to consider when dealing with their traditional places. Consider inviting a representative from the tribe to explain their approach in dealing with their resources. Look for ways you can build abridge with them toward a cooperative working relationship. 082 California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register) This handout compares the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. Because the California Register was consciously designed on the model of the National Register, the two programs are extremely similar. Ill fi However, it is important to be aware of the areas in I� which these programs differ. Herein. is offered f _ information about eligibility criteria, integrity n r requirements, special (criteria) considerations, and the n nomination process. 1 When trying to determine if a resource is eligible for the California Register, you may find it easier to first determine a resource's eligibility for the National Register. Then, if you find it ineligible for the National Register --and keeping in mind the differences between the two programs --move on to determine if it may in fact be eligible for the California Register as a result of these differences. The information in this handout is taken from the implementing regulations for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 et seq), which can be accessed on the internet at http:// www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/re,gister/ts I Oca.pdf, and How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation' (National Register Bulletin 15), which can be accessed on the internet at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/ publications/bulletins.htm. It is advised that you consult these two publications for more specific information. The back of this handout contains a listing of and request form for other publications you may find helpful. M . 083 Eligibility Criteria California Register An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or Z. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. National Register An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria: A. That are -associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad: patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual. distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. California Register Integrity National Register Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgement, but is must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of t:he aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. Special (Criteria) Considerations California Register Moved buildings, structures, or objects. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the non - historic grouping of historic buildings into parks or districts. However, it is recognized that moving an historic building, structure, or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource. An historical resource should retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment. Historical resources achieving significance within the past fifty years. In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain.a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be.considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. Reconstructed buildings. Reconstructed buildings are those buildings not listed in the California Register under the criteria stated above. A reconstructed building less than fifty years old may be eligible if it embodies traditional building methods and techniques that play an important role in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices; e.g., a Native American roundhouse. National Register Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design r features, or from association with historic events; or s� A reconstructed building when J� accurately executed in a suitabler?? environment and presented in a — dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or A property primarily commemorative in. intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or A property achieving significance within the past fifty years if it is of exceptional importance. 'of_ .— 0 6 5 4 5 Nomination California Register .r Obtain nomination packet from the Office of Historic 1. Preservation (OHP). Complete application, including all necessary supplemental forms, according to instructions. Notify the clerk of the local government in whose 2. jurisdiction the resource is located by certified mail that an application will be filed with OHP and request that the local government provide written comments. The notification must include a copy of the application. Upon receiving written comments from the local 3. government or ninety days after sending notification to the local government (whichever is sooner), the applicant forwards the completed application and any comments to OHP. Within 30 days, OHP staff will ensure that the 4. application is complete and will send notification to the property owner (if the applicant is not the property owner). When the application is complete and the property owner has been notified, the application will be scheduled on an agenda of the SHRC for action. 5. Note: A nomination does not require owner consent in order for the — resource to be listed, but 6, it cannot be listed over ® ��� ® an owner's objections. ❑ The State Historical - 7 Resources Commission can, however, formally determine a property eligible for the California Register if the resource owner objects. Process National Register Obtain nomination packet from OHR Read National Register criteria and How to Complete the Nah'onal Register Forms (Bulletin 16A) and follow these guidelines exactly when preparing application form. If you are not the owner of the property you are submitting for registration, please inform the owner of your intention to apply for registration. The property or district may not be listed over th:: objection of the owner or majority of owners. If the area is proposed for registration as an historic district, please follow the SHRC district policy prior to submission of the application. OHP staff is available to assist district applicants and should be contacted in the early stages of the process. Submit completed forms, photographs and maps to OHP for review. If the property is endangered or the applicant is requesting rehabilitation incentives under the Tax Reform Act or Revenue Act of 1978, this must be stated clearly in the cover letter. Applications will be reviewed by the OHP. Those which are inadequate or are not prepared in accordance with the guidelines published in Bulletin 16A will be returned to the applicant for further work. OHP notifies all applicants, property owners and appropriate governmental jurisdictions of the time and place of the SHRC meeting. If approved by the SHRC, the application is sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer for nomination to the National Register. The final determination is made 45 days after receipt by the Keeper of the: National Register in Washington, D.C. For more information, ❑ How to Apply the National Register Criteria ❑ California Register State Law and j°reservation forEvaluat(on (National Register Bulletin 15) El other ❑ California Register nomination packet ❑ Registration Frograms in 0difozma handout Office of Historic Preservation Name Department of Parks and Recreation PO Box 94,2896 Address Sacramento CA 94296-0001' fax: (916) 653-9824 email: innels@ohp.parks.ca.gov. _. -many publications: can also be found at the OHP City/State/Zip website at http L/olip.parks Gag This publication he, been financed in part with Federal hinds from the National Park Sarvke. Department of the Interior, under Nor National H stone Ptesen2llm Ad of 1966, M amended, and admnistered by tine California OHica of Historic Prese,wtion. The convents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or pollees of the Departrem of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial produM constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department at the Interior. Under rNe V1 of the Civil Rights M of 1964 and Secnon 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. the U.S. Department of the Interior etriclly prohibits unlawful discrimination on me basis of race. color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally - assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminatetl against in any program. acWitg or facilay as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to Of" for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of me Interior, National Park Service, Box 37127, Washington DC 20013-]12]. M 086 03/0, RAft IR in I!, for Historic Preservation in California a == 11.. • . 081 This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or it you desire further information, please write to Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Box 37127, Washington DC 20013.7127. 10/01 2 088 State Agencies California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Web www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/ The CEQA Web is a cooperative effort among the Resources Agency, its CERES and LUPIN programs (see below) and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (see below). The site provides valuable information for planners, consultants, attorneys, and citizens with an interest in CEQA. Its offerings include CEQA Statute and Guidelines, an interactive process flow chart, a case law search, a directory of CEQA judges, answers to frequently asked questions, and more. California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) www.ceres.ca.gov CERES is an information system developed by the California Resources Agency to facilitate access to a variety of electronic data describing California's rich and diverse environments. -The goal of CERES is to improve environmental analysis and planning by integrating natural and cultural resource information from multiple contributors and by making it available and useful to a wide variety of users. This site contains a wealth of environmental data, searchable by organization, geographical area, theme, and data type. It also contains information about environmental law and education. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/chris/index.htm CHRIS is a statewide system for managing information on the full range of historical resources identified in California. CHRIS is a cooperative partnership between the citizens of California, historic preservation professionals, eleven Information Centers, the CHRIS Hub, and various agencies. Information Centers provide archeologicall and historical resources information to local governments and individuals with environmental review responsibilities. This site contains a listing of the Information Centers and contact information for each as well as CHRIS publications, including the Information Center Procedural Manual. California Land Use Planning Information Network (LUPIN) www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/ LUPIN, a program of the California Resources Agency, is an information service that supports and addresses land use and planning issues via the Internet. The site contains a listing of planning, zoning, and development laws, links to city and county zoning ordinances, and information on topics such as demographics. California Main Street commerce.ca.gov/business/community/mainstreet/ In 1985, California joined a growing national movement to improve the quality of life in America's towns, cities and neighborhoods by restoring the economic health of Main Streets --historic, traditionally designed central business districts. Since its birth, California Main Street, a program of the California Trade and Commerce Agency, has provided superior state -level leadership on revitalization techniques using the Main Q&9 3 Street Approach to revitalization. This site has a information on becoming a Main Street community, training opportunities, and other resources. California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) www.ohp.parks.ca.gov The OHP is the governmental agency primarily responsible for the statewide administration of the historic preservation program in California. The CHIP website contains useful information about OHP programs, such as survey and inventory, local government, registration programs, environmental review and compliance, incentives, and grants and funding sources. It also provides information about the State Historical Resources Commission and the California Historical Resources Information System (see above). Division of the State Architect (DSA)/State Historical Building Safety Board (SHBSB) www.dsa.ca.gov The DSA acts -as California's policy leader for building design and construction and provides design and construction oversight for K-12 schools and community colleges. DSA also develops and maintains the accessibility standards and codes utilized in public and private buildings throughout California. DSA incorporates the offices of the independent SHBSB, caretaker of California's State Historical Building Code (SHBC). The DSA site contains inspector information, project tracking lists, code change updates, and more. The SHBC portion of the site also has reports on various aspects of the code, such as fire protection, public safety, additions and expansions, and seismic repair and upgrading. Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR)/California State Clearinghouse (SCH) www.opr.ca.gov/ The OPR provides research staff to the Governor, conducts comprehensive statewide planning, facilitates interagency coordination, provides local agency planning assistance, and manages state environmental review processes. The SCH has three primary functions: coordination of state agency review of environmental documents; coordination of state and local review of federal grant applications; and technical assistance on land use planning and CEQA matters. This site contains the SCH's CEQAnet database, information on SCH's role in federal grant review processes, and information on other OPR programs, such as the Innovation in Government and Americorps programs. Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)/Section 106 Review www.achp.gov/ The ACHP is an independent Federal agency that provides a forum for influencing Federal activities, programs, and policies as they affect historic resources. The goal of 4 090 the National Historic Preservation Act, which established the ACHP in 1966, is to have Federal agencies act as responsible stewards of our Nation's resources when their actions affect historic properties. The ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to balance historic preservation concerns with Federal project requirements. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by the ACHP. This site has news important to the ACHP and its constituents, information on the Section 106 process, training and education sources, a listing of publications, including Section 106 case law, and a listing of federal, state, and tribal program contacts. Heritage Preservation Services www2.cr.nps.gov/ Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service, helps our nation's citizens and communities identify, evaluate, protect, and preserve historic properties for future generations of Americans. Located in Washington, D.C. within the National Center for Cultural Resources, the Division provides a broad range of products and services, financial assistance and incentives, educational guidance, and technical information in support of this mission. Its diverse partners include State Historic Preservation Offices, local governments, tribes, federal agencies, colleges, and non-profit organizations. This site is a wealth of information, including all you need to know about the Secretary's Standards, the rehabilitation tax credit program, the Certified Local Government program, and more (be sure to visit the HPS Classroom section). It also has many useful publications, including the Preservation Briefs series. Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (NABS/HAER) www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/ HABS/HAER is an integral component of the federal government's commitment to historic preservation. The program documents important architectural, engineering, and industrial sites throughout the United States and its territories. A complete set of HABS/HAER documentation, consisting of measured drawings, large -format photographs, and written history, plays a key role in accomplishing the mission of creating an archive of American architecture and engineering and in better understanding what historic resources tell us about America's diverse ethnic and cultural heritage. To ensure that such evidence is not lost to future generations, the HABS/HAER Collections are archived at the Library of Congress, where they are made available to the public. This site has information on highlighted projects, drawings and photographs, different levels of documentation, and more, as well as a collections list for previously documented buildings and structures. 091 5 National Environmental Policy"Act (NEPA) ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm NEPA is the nation's broadest environmental law, put in place in 1970. It establishes environmental policy for the nation, provides an interdisciplinary framework for federal agencies to prevent environmental damage, and contains "action -forcing" procedures to ensure that federal agency decision -makers consider the effects their decisions will have on the environment. This site contains NEPA procedures, statute, and related executive orders, as well as information on the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), points of contact, and links to federal agency sites. National Park Service (NPS)/Cultural Resources www.cr.nps.gov/ The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The NPS cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. The NPS site has a Tools for Learning section, a History in the Parks section, information on grants and assistance, and a host of other information sources. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) www.cr.nps.gov/nr/ The NRHP is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. This site contains the NRHP listing of designated properties (National Register Information Service), travel itineraries, theme studies and information on the National Historic Landmark program, and the invaluable National Register bulletins, as well as other publications. Advocacy and Professional Organizations American Planning Association (APA) www.planning.org/ The APA and its professional institute, the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), are organized to advance the art and science of planning and to foster the activity of planning -- physical, economic, and social -- at the local, regional, state, and national levels. The objective of the APA is to encourage planning that will contribute to public well-being by developing communities and environments that meet the needs of people and society more effectively. This site provides information on the AICP exam, federal planning legislation, educational opportunities, and much more. 6 092 California Chapter American Planning Association (CCAPA) www.calapa.org/ The CCAPA links planners statewide and nationwide through the American Planning Association. Through this linkage, members obtain the latest information about planning, unite to influence legislative issues, and further professional expertise through conferences, meetings and workshops. The site has updates on the CCAPA annual conference, information on taking the American Institute of Certified Planners examination, planning legislation news, and a section for local news. California Council for the Promotion of History (CCPH) www.csus.edu/org/ccph/ CCPH is a statewide nonprofit organization founded in 1977. CCPH members represent almost every area of historical activity in California including historians working for public agencies, historians working in the private sector, academic historians, archivists, museum professionals, preservation specialists, teachers and students. The -role of CCPH is to foster, facilitate, and coordinate efforts that advance the preservation, interpretation, and management of California's historical resources and to enhance the application of history skills in the public and private sectors. The site contains information about CCPH programs, including its annual conference, the Register of Professional Historians, a mini -grants program, awards, and more. California Preservation Foundation (CPF) www.californiapreservation.org CPF is a statewide, non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of California's historic resources. CPF emerged in response to the need for a statewide organization that could focus on issues common to all and provide the cohesive and vital link between state, regional, and local preservation interests. CPF is a statewide network of its members: individuals, businesses, organizations, and local governments long committed to historic preservation. Through this network CPF serves as a clearinghouse for preservation ideas, technical information, and advice, available to all. The site contains information about CPF's programs, such as their annual conference and awards, and publications, whose topics range from building code issues, to disaster management, to award -winning design solutions. National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) www.arches.uga.edu/-napc/index.htm The NAPC builds strong local preservation programs through education, training, and advocacy. The NAPC is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, governed by a Board of Directors whose members must have direct associations with preservation commissions. This site contains answers to frequently asked questions, information on the NAPC's educational programs, and updates on their bi-annual forum. National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) www.sso.org/ncshpo/ The NCSHPO is the professional association of the State government officials who carry out the national historic preservation program as delegatees of the Secretary of 093 7 M the Interior pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470). The NCSHPO acts as a communications vehicle among the State Historic Preservation Officers and their staffs and represents the SHPOs with federal agencies and national preservation organizations. The National Historic Preservation Act names the NCSHPO as the point of contact for the State Historic Preservation Officers. The site has updates on the Historic Preservation Fund, which funds the programs mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act, a database of state preservation legislation, and a listing of State Historic Preservation Officers. National Preservation Institute (NPI) www.npi.org/ The NPI is a nonprofit organization offering specialized information, continuing education, and professional training for the management, development, and preservation of historic, cultural, and environmental resources. Visit this site for an NPI seminars list, a helpful materials listing, and information on NEPA (see above). National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) www.nthp.org The NTHP provides leadership, education, and advocacy to save America's diverse historic places and revitalize our communities. The NTHP site has a wealth of information about the organization's programs, including the well-known 11 Most Endangered Places listing and the National Main Street Center, and publications, from books to reports to pamphlets. Society for California Archaeology (SCA) www.scanet.org/ SCA is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to research, understanding, interpretation, and conservation of California's heritage. Membership is open to everyone with an interest in California archaeology. This site contains valuable research links, legislative updates, educational opportunities, and information on SCA programs, including California Archaeology Month. G94 8 11 E-{ A m 2 dzwzo O H W �zz� z� � Q ao�� �x W H wz�w 0 OW�z� a+ wEw-UO xaWch �d d y M R z z°ads„ to m z .. N O p� �.0 u azi Poo m qpr.° ° o. 3 w = p °' ° . on 1. p is ra b a w Ca 'G U o ca a41 dz w E r- E °�'� c°v� c G° °��" .0 U C�0 PCd O a°.� i m "C 'O C E V Jb p rnU ��a m mpr.d �U cfa�o �4 c.6 p H ¢Z a w En (A 0 U" w A za d z z w H H w e cn U U N '" FO P4 GUG > w a O x O o zF Q z a (� W � LK F U N GG W> a%i w> O =) 0 0 e0 a> tere�} o L C y G U q O� w �o c� �d ✓J w c� C� N$ ° r T� O h V1 ' 3 tW°d O w l7i 3Z3c ��>��$ F°O����w.°= i7>..c on to > O G T w w ti n G o 55 ° `�°° cam-' ° ° .> 4> ti v .PC m C a� 1 0.❑ z ri O '[C3�. y w dz $ O C G >' z O O C z >t 6[5°5yn ���d�'a 30�'' rg v�i � Fc � $ bb .^cO.. ¢' � � $ 3 ti � $ � �•o o � � m 5 � .� 44 S eu 5 o10 r. N o N�_� o c� J o •a a •m a� T° 3 7 5 � a ',: •mo_ � y � v� $ y��'��$�30��&•n°fix 09a•c x A ao,a�9030°G0 � °wow ��p> $ `• `� •'3 >, o .5 a z •o aci F� 5 .a 3 o °.3 o S$ o G" no �? w r o G �i pq w a 5 6 y 9.� 3 •°° o a c c CIS 6 u ,0 •o aai $ .5 o a'ci �F .o a •� aci `� •5 '3 � p, •o .^1v ° c o ai. •G w J pp p '� H •� > o c ° o a or> q >.9 O> N N e0 .O O P N .r ❑ v P P •� > c o T ° 5 5,= c •5 U .9 rA N O '� 'O O �+ u on ' w`C� °0 i8. °G o 293ARAa0x w '� � o $ aai � 3 ° > o sou > �' o c •5 ° ° a :5 c 2 w z v >` g N ° 'o •d n' o ' co > c co re.iOSAi� .> M a v v Q R ,°�' o '� �' w a3� o$ o g o 3 P 3 0 z •o a •°'o G m a°i •� o �C $,� > a o .' a 5 'o 0 � U a>° ON C 'HG Z $ P° c •a g a 'aa G o > w N c 'a o m p O o° .b a o$ m `� Z 7 a5i $$ c U. qG_q G g °c p�WW on C b a m 3 0❑ p m 0 ,� C rJ' G P ° .O 0. A O O N y '� y G a C c� v: o00 �Gq$'� m c•9 ° G w o o y e0-�. a ro C a c� a�.d;� G m "' p G G P `�' o .0 '� � O N F p O; y .5 > •CC ,— G. •� c� W 'S N '•� 'C N CY 5 't. N aw .0 C A N Q� N 4C O ctl N N G (C %• w O a y fC GNL [ P N 0 ^ °� .� :p: pars`• rc� , o o •� o .� a� c •��qjy C o a� v°' Z c .� •o '3_ 5 '� 'o cqQ ro O N a1 O q >, o s N O �J .. $ p o N 5 aGi o aGi O ac0i 5 r >O v� 55 G w •iy vl ty o �' U .G N N 3 U F a y G G A ''a b ^' 3 'y c > 9 'n> o° v o 0 0 r5 G° '� c° .� �p a� G u c°c�� . N •$ •a w v N •9 m o cn rn o vi pp 'h " cu v ••�� > .i; °-� ° `° g a� a"i ;k w A a"i to .� z a 5gy ?? a°i tO aCi ii •2 y •`ai F. }°• a > _ N ° O o '° m A O w o Ow °� ? ° N °� C G O w w 0 o 0n E' 9'3 2d3s.5 3:3 c•9 �ti �' o �x w �a .�'2 N� `rc� > °v.P 8 �L c Nw° Sz •d v C O > 4 a) O GO a 5 5 y U s . E F U a A ?L a G %. O •� O T :� C: U 0 0 N .�.� N N N �y 'J ^ U mg u°° a 5 5 `5 c C ^ 'a5i a^°i ¢ m c •° ° 09 3 c AC NTc oc S��P =o �pp5y.a���c Iry G w c barn o y 5 N9 m g❑ pp��' ° 3 u o u E G 5i m cad r w 9 N. w F u '.°�• G 5 cxd b �.," ° G G w v a E w in a C o o �i c z a �� ° Q " .� m ri m ° 6 " c" a p y oho 3 0 b a a"i :� •°�'� '� a A g o F a Q 3 r5 55 > a> c m 5 0 5 B a 0 w in c°3 o P •= N .° Q '^ Ei °� O ° °� oo Z c >.5 ,000. 5C' •:OoO [F!! .,O qa ^� z a0 co y aJ ocm o v0 U m•�Uc aEu4iJ do o a o�C .a>ry 7 p A r 4agy caAC 0Nj 'O o .G O •5 0 8 a k a INLAND EMPIRE EDITION Cos Angeles — — 'mURSDA NI-i 1, loon W 1'be hdermc1: WwW-W'm S.Wm pRECIOUS i ndineasteenAUtM.Behiindhimaref limustudents Brad Leigh. et.andtshards Rob Ware. Site Could Yield Clues to Indian Mystery Kept secret for years, an iutportant archeol4cal find in Utah is opened for its first public tau. Byveyrn Rani+ RANGE CRERK CANYON. ❑tali — For mare ttum M Years. Waldo Wilcox never old the sr` twat ut Rangc Croak. He snouetl away the curivae Ou Wlowcd Just his On of:xien 111 w ex - in to his a,o00msu ranch, deep in he rurnow swrdstone can- yons of esstern Utah. But on WeWrcaday, the secret was out. The 74yeufd —w 4- who recently sold his ranch W the hd- end government, had been rdt- G" ouone of the most.u¢enaise ancient Indira vies in North ,menu. He ohered the first public tour of it W eanrsday to a groupor O,portem The hind's wrLwluglcal ,nine, scientists say, nyela that of Mess Verde in Colorado end New Mexico's Chaco Canyon Granaries, stone housea, rack out end thousands of errow- heads horn the Fremont eultute Inv on lush eany°n hours, star cliffs son chiseled on stops wells. Researchers s,, the sheer quantity of the metered end its pristine condition may help an- swer one of the artist enduring questions in WNorth �e icen archeology— hY Fie - mart, who lived between roughly AD Bhd and 13N, dissPPear? "The opportunities this site offers are unbelievable," said Ravin ]ones, a Utah stets arehe. [Bee Branch, Pape A271 7 co s 2e� dc'3^ 'ac 13- a Vs 3vco_ay��?.J c as ObEL u50G �'ua K• LvE��°j °33°LyOSnn ce° �oE`Or yE"vcu'E'3 'z m� ud °cmm E'O»a--�Soa q� G�a2E?cCE °LuE jES3 F� 3LG E�°y Fe R Jim, �d E Eat i Rm °a y q$ i . All amp'